Remember when 38-year-old Jerry Seinfeld dated a 17-year-old high schooler?

[Anonymous]

Didn’t she go to GW for a while during their relationship?

[Anonymous]

He must have an amazing PR firm on retainer to get these stories squashed during #MeToo.

Her family is extremely wealthy, so she wasn't after his money. I'm sure she signed an NDA, but probably got a pound of flesh from Seinfeld.

[Anonymous]

Holy hell, how have I never heard this!?!?!?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

So, have the women who got married in 1950 were below the age of 20. Are you really asserting that all of them were either 18 or 19? I couldn't find marriage rates by specific age but in 1950, 15.7% of 15-19 year old females were married. If you assert they were all 19, you're going to have to provide a citation. While 15.7% isn't 'high', it makes marriage of teenagers not uncommon. My own grandparents got married at 16 in 1933.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_021.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

So, have the women who got married in 1950 were below the age of 20. Are you really asserting that all of them were either 18 or 19? I couldn't find marriage rates by specific age but in 1950, 15.7% of 15-19 year old females were married. If you assert they were all 19, you're going to have to provide a citation. While 15.7% isn't 'high', it makes marriage of teenagers not uncommon. My own grandparents got married at 16 in 1933.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_021.pdf

I won’t assert that they were *all* 19, and I never said that. What was common was for girls to get married immediately after high school.

If you say the 15-19 year olds were evenly distributed in that 15.7%, that means that about 9% of 15, 16, and 17 year olds were married. I don’t think that 9% of a group doing something makes it common and I don’t think that the 15% was evenly distributed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

So, have the women who got married in 1950 were below the age of 20. Are you really asserting that all of them were either 18 or 19? I couldn't find marriage rates by specific age but in 1950, 15.7% of 15-19 year old females were married. If you assert they were all 19, you're going to have to provide a citation. While 15.7% isn't 'high', it makes marriage of teenagers not uncommon. My own grandparents got married at 16 in 1933.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_021.pdf

I won’t assert that they were *all* 19, and I never said that. What was common was for girls to get married immediately after high school.

If you say the 15-19 year olds were evenly distributed in that 15.7%, that means that about 9% of 15, 16, and 17 year olds were married. I don’t think that 9% of a group doing something makes it common and I don’t think that the 15% was evenly distributed.

Oh and I meant to add that about 4% of 15-19 year olds today are married. We have this idea that waiting until girls get older is a relatively new phenomenon, and that idea is typically used to justify the current social taboo on early marriage as arbitrary. But it’s simply not true that the age of first marriage has been getting steadily higher and higher. Even in Ancient Rome most women married in late teens or early twenties; young girls marrying was only common among the upper class to ensure property stayed in the noble family.

So no it’s not like giving Seinfeld the side-eye here is just an imposition of our modern social mores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if a 38 yr old Jerry Seinfeld (or fill in the blank with whatever huge celebrity male) wanted to date your 17/18 year old daughter, you'd tell her don't do it???

GTFOH!! You people are such hypocrites, lol.

Hey, are you one of those parents who would have totally let your kid have sleepovers at Michael Jackson’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

So, have the women who got married in 1950 were below the age of 20. Are you really asserting that all of them were either 18 or 19? I couldn't find marriage rates by specific age but in 1950, 15.7% of 15-19 year old females were married. If you assert they were all 19, you're going to have to provide a citation. While 15.7% isn't 'high', it makes marriage of teenagers not uncommon. My own grandparents got married at 16 in 1933.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_021.pdf

I won’t assert that they were *all* 19, and I never said that. What was common was for girls to get married immediately after high school.

If you say the 15-19 year olds were evenly distributed in that 15.7%, that means that about 9% of 15, 16, and 17 year olds were married. I don’t think that 9% of a group doing something makes it common and I don’t think that the 15% was evenly distributed.

Oh and I meant to add that about 4% of 15-19 year olds today are married. We have this idea that waiting until girls get older is a relatively new phenomenon, and that idea is typically used to justify the current social taboo on early marriage as arbitrary. But it’s simply not true that the age of first marriage has been getting steadily higher and higher. Even in Ancient Rome most women married in late teens or early twenties; young girls marrying was only common among the upper class to ensure property stayed in the noble family.

So no it’s not like giving Seinfeld the side-eye here is just an imposition of our modern social mores.

Except in 1960, the percent of white women aged 25 who had graduated from high school was less than 50%. You also shouldn't use ancient Rome as an example. I'm actually a classicist with MA/BA in Latin/Greek. Marriage was only available to Roman citizens and usually arranged. It wasn't until around 212 CE when citizenship was granted to almost all the free inhabitants of of the empire.

While 9% of something may not make it 'common', it's definitely not 'uncommon'. It's definitely not uncommon when it's 15.7%. If my chances of winning the lottery were 15.7%, I'd be playing it every day. If something had a 15.7% failure rate, I wouldn't use it. At 15.7%, something doesn't happen often but it happens often enough.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

[Anonymous]

hi please don't derail this thread with boring stats and data -- seinfeld was incredibly gross to do this and has amazingly avoided being loudly called a total creeper for it. that is what we are here to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that before around 1974 ish, women married at 17, 18, 19? All the time.

That’s not true. The average age of marriage for women was lowest in the fifties, when it was 20. Seventeen year olds getting married was not common at all.

According to the Census Bureau, the median (not average) age of marriage for women in 1950 appears to be about 20. That means half the women who married were older and half were younger. The first PP is correct that prior to 1974 it was common for women 17-19 year olds to be married.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

19 yes but 17? No. Not common.

So, have the women who got married in 1950 were below the age of 20. Are you really asserting that all of them were either 18 or 19? I couldn't find marriage rates by specific age but in 1950, 15.7% of 15-19 year old females were married. If you assert they were all 19, you're going to have to provide a citation. While 15.7% isn't 'high', it makes marriage of teenagers not uncommon. My own grandparents got married at 16 in 1933.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_021.pdf

I won’t assert that they were *all* 19, and I never said that. What was common was for girls to get married immediately after high school.

If you say the 15-19 year olds were evenly distributed in that 15.7%, that means that about 9% of 15, 16, and 17 year olds were married. I don’t think that 9% of a group doing something makes it common and I don’t think that the 15% was evenly distributed.

Oh and I meant to add that about 4% of 15-19 year olds today are married. We have this idea that waiting until girls get older is a relatively new phenomenon, and that idea is typically used to justify the current social taboo on early marriage as arbitrary. But it’s simply not true that the age of first marriage has been getting steadily higher and higher. Even in Ancient Rome most women married in late teens or early twenties; young girls marrying was only common among the upper class to ensure property stayed in the noble family.

So no it’s not like giving Seinfeld the side-eye here is just an imposition of our modern social mores.

Except in 1960, the percent of white women aged 25 who had graduated from high school was less than 50%. You also shouldn't use ancient Rome as an example. I'm actually a classicist with MA/BA in Latin/Greek. Marriage was only available to Roman citizens and usually arranged. It wasn't until around 212 CE when citizenship was granted to almost all the free inhabitants of of the empire.

While 9% of something may not make it 'common', it's definitely not 'uncommon'. It's definitely not uncommon when it's 15.7%. If my chances of winning the lottery were 15.7%, I'd be playing it every day. If something had a 15.7% failure rate, I wouldn't use it. At 15.7%, something doesn't happen often but it happens often enough.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

So you’re saying that being expected to marry after high school wasn’t common? Because that’s what I said, and it seems like you’re disagreeing with me, but then you’re saying that something that happened at *most* 9% of the time was common. So I suppose I’m not sure what you mean by common.

Also nothing about what you’re saying about Ancient Rome conflicts with what I’m saying, from the way I’m reading it. Do you have a reason to believe that Roman women who got married did not do so in late teens or early twenties?

But overall my point is that women waiting to marry until 18 has been normal for a looooong time. And typically when it happens, it’s within a culture of a highly patriarchal culture interested in controlling women, like the extreme purity culture in the white evangelical church. So people shouldn’t be bringing It up to justify a 35 year old man dating a high school girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell, how have I never heard this!?!?!?!?!

Wait I'm confused by this. Was that Seinfeld in the video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell, how have I never heard this!?!?!?!?!

Wait I'm confused by this. Was that Seinfeld in the video?

No.

[Anonymous]

It's a Seinfeld lookalike with a unibrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a Seinfeld lookalike with a unibrow.

Did Howard Stern think this was a terrible thing?

(I don't know much about him)