Finding a partner was easier 'back in the day' - discuss

CC-Warrior

Would you say that finding a partner was easier 'back in the day'?

'The day' could be the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's or whatever. If so, what do you think makes it difficult to meet people these days? Is it the pace of life, career pressures, a more dangerous society? Were people nicer in the day and had less problems? Is social networking playing a part by reducing actual social interaction and introducing more problems?

I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on whether it is easier to meet someone whilst you are younger, i.e. it may be easier to meet someone whilst in your twenties as there seems to be more single people available in that age group.

Also, are people using online dating actually trying to hard? If you look you'll never find it, and all that. I was always told to relax and not put pressure on myself to meet someone. Those sites seem very competitive, almost a battleground. Just to meet up with a total stranger, urgh.

To the parents with offspring in their late teens/early twenties - what advice do you give?

What are your thoughts?

Gloomendoom

I didn't find it particularly easy. I didn't meet "the one" until I was in my 40's.

I wasn't looking for her.

angelil

Disagree. I think it's maybe even easier to meet people these days as there are so many more ways you can do it (online, speed dating...).

OH, and 'online' doesn't specifically have to mean online dating websites like Match. I met my husband online through the website of the university we both attended, for example.

fluffnutter

Ask women in the 1920s whether they thought finding a fella was easy.

That aside I think people probably have more choosy expectations now than 80 years or so ago. It's a diet of Hollywood romances, 'having it all' and female emancipation. None of that is necessarily a bad thing.

Tixy

I think easier in some respects and harder in others.

In previous generations it was more common to live many years in a smaller geographical area. So people living in a small market town would all go to school together, continue to live and work nearby as they grow up, socialise in a limited area and so know everything about the people they might be interested in.
Now its common for the equivalent group of people to disperse over a much wider area, going to Uni and then settling all over the country and also common to commute to work somewhere an hour from where you live. You might socialise by going out to a city where chances are the vast majority of faces are strangers to you.

Whilst the second should give you more chance to meet more people and therefore increase your chance of finding someone you really connect with I think in many cases I think social interaction is more superficial now and its hard to really get to know those people as well as you might in a smaller community.

I also think people in general are more choosy/particular now and less willing to 'settle' with someone they don't feel is perfect. In general we have higher expectations and are less willing to compromise because its more common and socially accepted to remain single.

Gloomendoom

fluffnutter wrote: »

Ask women in the 1920s whether they thought finding a fella was easy..

Good point. My great aunt Edie never found a fella. Young men were in short supply as so many had been killed in the Great War.

marisco_2

I think it is far easier to meet a partner now than it use to be. There are so many different ways to connect with people that didn't exist years ago. As you get older and lead a busier life, with more commitments to meet and responsibilities to handle, then the time you can spend on dating can be restricted. I guess then it comes down to prioritising what is most important to your happiness.

Hermia

My mum left school in the 1950s and said pretty much all her peers were married in their 20s. But, she said there really wasn't much else to do. Girls from her background just didn't go to university, have careers or live on their own. Unless the wanted to be an old maid stuck at home you got married. She said it was similar with the boys. Boys from her background did not go away to university and they didn't learn to look after themselves. So if they wanted hot meals, their washing done and sex they married! They obviously weren't all happy marriages though.

The one thing my mum did mention was that there wasn't quite the same obsession with being gorgeous and the perfect partner. She remembers that everyone assumed they would find someone even if they weren't attractive or were a bit socially awkward. She said one boy said to her that she would have no problem finding a husband because she was so kind and good with children. These days young people seem to be under a lot of pressure to be perfect and I can't imagine any teenager saying being kind makes you attractive!

duchy

I'm not sure if it is harder to find someone but I think it might be harder to find someone willing to make a commitment. Back in the seventies there was an expectation that a long term relationship was heading towards marriage and home together and children (more or less in that order). It was unusual that a couple together for more than a couple of years weren't engaged ......and living together wasnt "fallen into" so much as a trial heading for definite marriage plans. People knew where they stood more and were generally far clearer with their intentions. The trend now you see of women already moved in and already having had children but still "Waiting for a proposal" was really unusual in the sense we see it on the thread on here...... until the mid eighties it was a lot more clear cut. You moved in knowing what the "intentions" were (not to say everyone who moved in together ultimately married but there was usually the intention to do so by both) Now socially it isn't assumed a couple are long term committed just because they share a home . Of course weddings back then didn't have this huge expectation that you'd spend more than you would on a house deposit either !!! You "got married" rather than "had a wedding".

DigForVictory

Back in the day a bit depends on which century, to say nothing of culture.

If you want living memory, then my father in law married a girl from his village (once he got back from the war.) My father maried a stunning lass he met a University - but if he hadn't gone abroad for a year, the relationship might have floundered.

A colleague is marrying next year - his bride has been arranged by their families & is living with his parents, learning all his mother can teach her about his care & feeding. He's a little disconcerted, but it's all looking like they'll be very happy. In part since he's demonstrated himself to be an easygoing honeybunch who gets the work done without fuss or bluster.

Another colleague is really putting himself through hoops trying to find a girlfriend & his "ideal woman" is most likely to be found somewhere is fanfiction. I'm not saying he'd like her to be a telekinetic vampire, as well as great cook, owner of a classic sports car & be possessed of legs as only graphic artists can easily draw, but I think he's forgotten that above all he needs a woman who is likely to find him interesting, or at least funny. I'm not at all sure the office banter is helping him, but we do seem to be the nearest he has to family.

And now we have partners, and commitment issues, and the pretty laid back approach to the apparently oldfashioned "love honour & obey, til death do us part" bit. Unless Your Own Vows include a hearty streak of 'determination to see this through til one of us is buried' then I'm not sure writing your own vows isn't something of a cop-out. I was raised by women who regarded marriage as sacred institution & thus caused a certain amount of angst when I declined to 'obey'.

Housing is so expensive you'll find spectacular combinations on the mortgage. (Four lads and two lasses the most spectacular combination in my circle, but with two lawyers involved the paperwork is immaculate. Like the bathrooms & 'public areas', although apparently all bets are off in the kitchen & bedrooms.)

So whereas an older cousin caused a ripple or three moving in with her boyfriend three decades ago, it did lead to marriage. Her neices' choices may well not, and their mother is having to gnaw on that one knowing that how we did things has shifted almost as far as we did from the arranged marriages of Tudor nobility with land, titles & offspring all included in the negotiations. Yet when daughter appears aglow & says "Mum we're getting married", likely a lot of the usual hopes & dreams & profoundly traditional words will be included. Just what will they mean by them then?

It's almost certainly a bit harder than the arranged marriages of the past, which since they were constructed with an eye on the long term & umpired by religion tended to be fairly robust. Yes there were upheavals, serial adulterers, children born out of wedlock, merciless double standards and so on, but it had beat cops who were clerics & who were there to guide you along the way to the afterlife.

If you'll excuse me, I must just go & murmur to my sons "elope"...

DKLS

I would suggest that finding "the one" is as difficult as ever, but judging by some of my single friends, finding companionship and relationships is easier than ever thanks to the internet.