One-sided exclusivity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

OK, and men think it's very smart for them to be exclusive for some period of time before he proposes. As indeed it is. Why would you ever propose to someone unless you're "extremely emotionally entangled" with each other? That's absurd.

"I'm not attached to you emotionally and I'm banging other men but you should propose to me anyway" - a man would have to be insane to accept this deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sleeping with more than one person is totally gross whether you’re male or female. Ewwww

Sleeping with 3 men, one after the other four months each in a year is fine, according to you. But sleeping with the same 3 men interspaced for the same 1 year is somehow wrong! [Yes, totally correct, that is wrong.]

It is so much easier to compare and solidify your choice when you are dating 3 men and you are dumping the lowest ranked choice as soon as you find a better one. This is by far the most efficient and least stressful way compared to the time when I was dating one person at a time.

It's gross and disgusting, and you will find that men have choices, too. The "better ones" are not going to commit to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sleeping with more than one person is totally gross whether you’re male or female. Ewwww

Sleeping with 3 men, one after the other four months each in a year is fine, according to you. But sleeping with the same 3 men interspaced for the same 1 year is somehow wrong! [Yes, totally correct, that is wrong.]

It is so much easier to compare and solidify your choice when you are dating 3 men and you are dumping the lowest ranked choice as soon as you find a better one. This is by far the most efficient and least stressful way compared to the time when I was dating one person at a time.

It's gross and disgusting, and you will find that men have choices, too. The "better ones" are not going to commit to you.

I think commitment begins when a man offers to move in together. This basically means you are building a life together, in full control of each other's time etc. When people just "date" meeting a few times per week, there may be no true exclusivity, anyways. A partner can exit anytime, or lie about not seeing others. Thus I don't even expect it from men, I just tell them they can feel free to date anyone they want if they want. I'm confident and only care about how he treats me, how he makes me feel in our relationship. If he sucks as a partner, I don't care if it's because he's seeing other women. He won't be a relationship material for me, regardless of the reason.

If a man wants exclusivity, then we need to discuss renting an apartment together, joining out lives in some other ways than just sex. Sex is not a good reason to be exclusive or commit. Men don't value sex nowadays

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't sleep with more than one man at a time.

And I don't sleep with a man unless he agrees to be exclusive with me and has shown me std testing.

A man might sleep with a woman whose sleeping around...but he's unlikely to marry her.

No, men don’t care. And most men don’t want to get married. And neither do I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

Here’s one for US for women beginning those born in 1938. I can’t find the UK study but conclusions were similar for 19th century lower and middle class.

https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/38/27#:~:text=Abstract,and%25201969%E2%80%931978%252C%2520respectively.

You do realize that the main reason sex wasn’t attainable for women back then was the lack of birth control, right ?

The sex and marriage became completely decoupled with invention of birth control. It’s just stupid to marry for sex, and to think that anyone you have sex with as a woman should marry you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't sleep with more than one man at a time.

And I don't sleep with a man unless he agrees to be exclusive with me and has shown me std testing.

A man might sleep with a woman whose sleeping around...but he's unlikely to marry her.

No, men don’t care. And most men don’t want to get married. And neither do I.

Men actually are more concerned about uptight and frigid women who are not dating for years… that’s a very common question - have you been in relationships post divorce ? Do you enjoy sex (for later dates)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

I will correct that to “conceived out of wedlock”. There was indeed a UK study by church birth records that showed babies were born way earlier than they should be if sex was had after marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

I will correct that to “conceived out of wedlock”. There was indeed a UK study by church birth records that showed babies were born way earlier than they should be if sex was had after marriage

The UK study you can’t find a citation to now but keep quoting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

I will correct that to “conceived out of wedlock”. There was indeed a UK study by church birth records that showed babies were born way earlier than they should be if sex was had after marriage

The UK study you can’t find a citation to now but keep quoting?

I can, actually. Sex is a basic human instinct: beliefs, church, economy or family pressures cant change this simple fact:

https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/10/03/sex-before-marriage/ - "Before the mid-19th century, of all first births born within marriage, between 20 and 40 percent had been conceived before the wedding took place"


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/continuity-and-change/article/abs/prenuptial-pregnancy-in-a-rural-area-of-devonshire-in-the-midnineteenth-century-colyton-18511881/6C4FF0231F5B2148845D2B938A7F546E - 30% brides were pregnant as of date of marriage between 1550-1849 according to deconstructed birth and marriage records:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

I will correct that to “conceived out of wedlock”. There was indeed a UK study by church birth records that showed babies were born way earlier than they should be if sex was had after marriage

The UK study you can’t find a citation to now but keep quoting?

I can, actually. Sex is a basic human instinct: beliefs, church, economy or family pressures cant change this simple fact:

https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/10/03/sex-before-marriage/ - "Before the mid-19th century, of all first births born within marriage, between 20 and 40 percent had been conceived before the wedding took place"


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/continuity-and-change/article/abs/prenuptial-pregnancy-in-a-rural-area-of-devonshire-in-the-midnineteenth-century-colyton-18511881/6C4FF0231F5B2148845D2B938A7F546E - 30% brides were pregnant as of date of marriage between 1550-1849 according to deconstructed birth and marriage records:

The first article suggests that its couples who were already engaged. Seems different than a Victorian testing of suitors which one poster was claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always tried to date 3 men at a time until one is almost certain to propose.

It is such a waste of time to date serially. If you need to break off with one or if they break off with you, it is so much easier when you have two others going. If one does not work out, then you have to start from scratch. So I always dated and been intimate with 3 men at a time. It is small enough number that you can manage to meet with all of them once a week.

Until I was pretty sure that DH was going to propose I was dating two other men. There is no need to talk about exclusivity. It is better not discussed at all.

Your DH proposed when you weren't dating exclusively? What an idiot. Literally a cuck.

I’m not PP, but both myself and many women I know wasted years on men who said they’d propose and never did. With my ex, I told him I was dating for marriage and he agreed, I waited 2 years for a ring, pressured him for an additional year (and he kept promising “it’s coming soon!”) then finally broke up. 3 years of my life wasted.

I think it’s very smart for women to continue dating other men until engaged. Even if you give a man a 2 year deadline, by that point you’re extremely emotionally entangled and it’s hard to just end things. Better to keep your options open and not get attached to one person.

Yes, in all these 19th century novels women had several suitors and were going out with all of them freely until one proposes.

They weren't having sex though. In fact, having sex with even ONE man before marriage would be unacceptable unless it immediately resulted in marriage (if necessary, at gunpoint). A woman who had sex with three men would be a social outcast, thrown out into the street to starve or work in a brothel.

Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now. And number of kids born less than 9 months from the wedding date. There was a research done in UK based on birth records: women had sex before marriage just the same.

I’d like to see the citation for that.

I have more for you: French revolutionary thinkers supported the idea of free sex choices for women. So did the communists in USSR: the concept of “liberated Soviet woman” is well known. The state propaganda was targeted at women education, sports and career achievements rather than marriage.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/atc/1724.html


https://monthlyreview.org/2020/02/01/sex-and-socialism/

You said: “ Actually, the number of children born out of wedlock was exactly the same in 19th century as it is now.”

Where is the citation for that?

I will correct that to “conceived out of wedlock”. There was indeed a UK study by church birth records that showed babies were born way earlier than they should be if sex was had after marriage

Kind of a big error in thought and argument.