Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Generations and Sex - Page 10







Post#226 at 07-17-2002 09:06 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-17-2002, 09:06 PM #226
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

"Being fruitful: Young Protestants follow Bible, multiply" By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES quoted as notice that not every bit of good news is a note of Progress:


Sam and Bethany Torode oppose contraception. They say it interferes with the "one flesh" nature of marriage declared in the Bible.

?????No one can accuse the Torodes of failing to practice what they preach. Their son Gideon was born almost exactly nine months after their November 2000 wedding.

?????"We don't waste any time," says Mr. Torode, 26, of South Wayne, Wis. He and his 21-year-old wife are expecting their second child in February.

?????The Catholic Church condemns contraception as "intrinsically evil," but the Torodes are not Catholic. They are part of a new generation of young Protestants who disdain birth control and favor larger families.

?????"A lot of people grew up without realizing there was an alternative to the dominant contraceptive lifestyle," says Mr. Torode, art and design editor of Touchstone, a Christian magazine.

?????In their new book, "Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception," the Torodes declare they want a "passel" of children, and they are not alone. Christian Internet sites such as http://www.quiverfull.com advocate large families based on Psalm 127:5: "As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them."

?????Many evangelical Protestants in the pro-life movement have large families. Tennessee pro-life activist Charles Wysong and his wife, Brenda, have 15 children; Arkansas state Rep. Jim Bob Duggar and his wife, Michelle, have 13; Virginia home-schooling leader Michael Farris and his wife, Vickie, have 10.

?????The evangelical journal Christianity Today began questioning family limits in 1991, asking, "Is Birth Control Christian?" In 2001, the magazine ran an article by the Torodes: "Make Love and Babies," along with a rebuttal by Eastern College biblical studies professor Raymond Van Leeuwen.

?????"To suggest that birth control is evil or perverse," Mr. Van Leeuwen wrote, "because it undermines God's sovereignty is to underestimate God's sovereignty and reject our responsibility to serve Him wisely."

?????The Christian Research Journal took on the topic in an 1996 article by Michigan Theological Seminary professor Wayne House. "Many [couples] are more than willing to enjoy sexual relations with no procreation responsibilities, yet the [biblical] text indicates that childbearing is a very real part of the purpose of God in creating male and female," he wrote.

?????It was not until the 20th century that Protestant churches endorsed birth control. Martin Luther and other early Protestant reformers "believed in abundant fertility," says Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for the Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Ill. "He condemned contraception and abortion in the strongest possible terms. Specifically, he thought [God's blessing for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28] to 'be fruitful and multiply' was a divine command."

?????Prior to the 1900s, Mr. Torode says, most Protestants opposed birth control for the same reasons expressed by Pope Paul VI in his July 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae."

?????"They believed contraception would increase promiscuity and encourage adultery by separating sex from procreation," he says.

?????But after the Church of England approved birth control at its 1930 Lambeth Conference, "all Protestant denominations went on to endorse contraception, except for a few groups like the Amish," he says. Protestants "were following the spirit of the age. They were influenced by people like [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger."

?????By the 1980s, acceptance of birth control was so widespread that tubal ligation -- surgical sterilization of women, now America's No. 1 contraceptive method -- became routine for women after having two or three children.

?????"After my mom had my [younger] sister, who is her third child, the nurse actually prepped her for a tubal ligation without her consent, but the doctor intervened -- he was a Christian, too," Mrs. Torode says. "My mom was pretty groggy and she didn't even know what was going on."

?????The Torodes endorse the Natural Family Planning (NFP) practices advocated by the Catholic pro-life Couple to Couple League, but most Americans don't know about NFP because the medical community almost unanimously endorses artificial birth control, Mr. Torode says. "It's so hard to get honest information. It's hard to find doctors who encourage large families."

?????The national trend toward smaller families has had profound consequences, Mr. Carlson says. Out-of-wedlock births -- 33 percent of all U.S. babies last year were born to unmarried women -- have become a troubling statistic, partly because the marital fertility rate has declined by more than 40 percent in the past 45 years.

?????Marital fertility is "the most important indicator of social health," Mr. Carlson says. "It's important because it embodies two critical measures of social health: the desire of young adults to marry and to procreate new life."

?????The Torodes base their opposition to artificial birth control on Genesis 2:24: "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

?????"God created marriage, sex and children to go together," Mr. Torode says. "There's the concept of the husband and wife becoming one flesh. And children are a gift that God bestows on that union. Contraception puts up a barrier in the middle of the union."

?????"We believe that husband and wife should hold nothing back from each other," he says, "and children are pretty much the natural result of that kind of love."

?????The Torodes' love began with a whirlwind courtship after 18-year-old college sophomore Bethany Patchin published an August 1999 article arguing that Christians should not kiss before marriage.

?????Her article in Focus on the Family's online journal Boundless (www.boundless.org) prompted Mr. Torode to reply with a letter that accused Bethany of trying to "drive young Christian men mad with desire" by boasting she had never been kissed. She now concedes there was perhaps "subconsciously" some truth in his charge.

?????After exchanging e-mails, the two met in January 2000. They were engaged that May and married six months later.

?????Mr. Torode now laughs at the irony of his letter to Boundless: "I can see the love letters pouring in now, from saps all over the country, proposing to poor Miss Patchin. Never underestimate reverse psychology," he wrote then.

?????"Then I wound up being the sap that fell for it," he says now, "because we did get married and we didn't kiss until our wedding day."

?????When the couple looked for books about contraception, they found that few modern Protestant authors had addressed the topic -- so they decided to write their own book.

?????"We're not trying to impose our views on others," Mrs. Torode says. "We're just putting an alternative out there, because a lot of people don't even realize all the options they have."







Post#227 at 07-17-2002 11:54 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-17-2002, 11:54 PM #227
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-17 19:06, Virgil K. Saari wrote:


?????"After my mom had my [younger] sister, who is her third child, the nurse actually prepped her for a tubal ligation without her consent, but the doctor intervened -- he was a Christian, too," Mrs. Torode says. "My mom was pretty groggy and she didn't even know what was going on."
I wish they made clear whether this was some kind of clerical error, or what. Something about that statement bothers me, on several levels at once.







Post#228 at 07-18-2002 12:02 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-18-2002, 12:02 AM #228
Guest

On 2002-07-17 19:06, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
""We're not trying to impose our views on others," Mrs. Torode says. "We're just putting an alternative out there, because a lot of people don't even realize all the options they have."
Here are the options.
1. Have Sex
2. Don't have Sex.

There is a lot more of the morality argument for abstaining these days. I wish that had been the case when I was younger, but it wasn't. Then again, the Lost probably argued from a moral standpoint, but their silent children rebeled and founded the sexual revolution, or at least the concept of it, with the Boomers eager to apply the theory.
How you respond to a viewpoint depends largely on who you are already.

Boomers who get on the moral High Horse better make sure they were "squares" back in the 60s and 70s if they want Millies to listen to them. "Do as I say. not as I do" hasn't worked for any generation in the recent past, and I don't see the little civics buying it either.

Maybe that's why Xers are cynical about Boomers, because we were old enough to see some of them in their 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' stage. :smile:

I can respect Mr. Saari's post because he seems to live the kind of life he advocates. At least as far as one can tell from the web.

With more Boomers like that, we just might make it through the crisis.

Oh well, it's late. It seems like every generation has it's good and it's bad. Sex is an area that is so personal it is hard to judge it by generational theory. Isn't it?







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-07-17 22:03 ]</font>







Post#229 at 07-18-2002 01:14 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-18-2002, 01:14 AM #229
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-17 22:02, Earthshine wrote:

Boomers who get on the moral High Horse better make sure they were "squares" back in the 60s and 70s if they want Millies to listen to them. "Do as I say. not as I do" hasn't worked for any generation in the recent past, and I don't see the little civics buying it either.
Here's something I've thought about upon occasion.

In the past Cycles, if S&H are right, previous Idealist Generations went through generally similar stages (wild and crazy youth-chrysalis-intolerant oldsters), but in all previous Cycles, by the time the Prophets reached the Elderhood stage, only their Reactive next-juniors could really recall it, and it would have seemed like a long, long time ago, in their childhood.

But THIS time, through the Magic of Memorex, we have the Boomers on audio, video, and even some early computer media in the full glory of their Wild and Crazy stage. The Boomers even thoughtfully recorded some of their own antics for posterity, saving their Reactive younger sibs and older kiddies the trouble.

The question is, could this have an effect in the Crisis stage? After all, this time around, in some ways the Awakening (and even the last [preceding] 4T) don't seem so long ago, because we've actually seen them with our own eyes, in a sense, on film.

Somewhere out there, I'm sure, is a Boomer mom/dad living in fear that their little Millies will accidentally run across THOSE pictures from their college days while playing over with the kids of their college friends.

or...

Chad (1988) the Millie walks up and asks, "Dad, if it's so critically important to work and act as a team, how did it help the team when you set fire to the Bursar's office?", while holding photographic evidence from the university web site.

"Mom, what's brown acid?" - Millie Sarah, 1995 cohort.

Seriously, though, the new technologies recording image and sound might, I think, potentially matter.

For an example, what happens if, at the height of the Crisis, the day after the GC makes a moving and soon-to-be-legendary speech calling for duty, sacrifice, upright behavior, and courage in this ultimate test, film of the Gray Champion splashing naked in the mud at Woodstock with her boyfriend(s) suddenly surfaces all over TV and Internet?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-17 23:17 ]</font>







Post#230 at 07-18-2002 08:54 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
07-18-2002, 08:54 AM #230
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

On 2002-07-17 15:46, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Katherine Kersten: The risks of cohabitation
Published Jul 17, 2002 in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune quoted for educational purpose only:


Among the report's findings is this: Couples who cohabit before marriage are much more likely to divorce after marriage than those who don't.
Oh, I love it when I can buck a statistical trend!! :grin:

Lies, damn lies, and you-know-what....







Post#231 at 07-18-2002 09:43 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
07-18-2002, 09:43 AM #231
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182



My wife and I lived together for the 10 or so months between getting engaged and getting married. Is that considered co-habitation (given that we were actively working on setting up our wedding for much of this time)?







Post#232 at 07-18-2002 01:11 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-18-2002, 01:11 PM #232
Guest

To look at a different aspect of Sex and the Generations, what about the nature of attraction and pairing? Do different gen types have general ways of courting and different things they look for when selecting a mate? What about cross gen attraction? Are there any specific couples that we can examine in the public eye that might help us understand this?

Here is a recent example in public life.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News...ord.flockhart/

Ideas?









Post#233 at 07-18-2002 02:31 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-18-2002, 02:31 PM #233
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-07-18 11:11, Earthshine wrote:
To look at a different aspect of Sex and the Generations, what about the nature of attraction and pairing? Do different gen types have general ways of courting and different things they look for when selecting a mate? What about cross gen attraction? Are there any specific couples that we can examine in the public eye that might help us understand this?
Without access to the private diaries or descriptions of private life as well as the celebrity projected this would seem quite impossible to do. Also, the celebrity status is often conferred upon those most distant from the "normal" range. Is Dubya a typical Texas rancher? The SWOTE a typical suburban housewife?







Post#234 at 07-18-2002 03:53 PM by Justin'79 [at Copenhagen, Danmark joined Jul 2001 #posts 698]
---
07-18-2002, 03:53 PM #234
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Copenhagen, Danmark
Posts
698

On 2002-07-17 23:14, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
On 2002-07-17 22:02, Earthshine wrote:

Boomers who get on the moral High Horse better make sure they were "squares" back in the 60s and 70s if they want Millies to listen to them. "Do as I say. not as I do" hasn't worked for any generation in the recent past, and I don't see the little civics buying it either.
Here's something I've thought about upon occasion.

In the past Cycles, if S&H are right, previous Idealist Generations went through generally similar stages (wild and crazy youth-chrysalis-intolerant oldsters), but in all previous Cycles, by the time the Prophets reached the Elderhood stage, only their Reactive next-juniors could really recall it, and it would have seemed like a long, long time ago, in their childhood.

But THIS time, through the Magic of Memorex, we have the Boomers on audio, video, and even some early computer media in the full glory of their Wild and Crazy stage. The Boomers even thoughtfully recorded some of their own antics for posterity, saving their Reactive younger sibs and older kiddies the trouble.

The question is, could this have an effect in the Crisis stage? After all, this time around, in some ways the Awakening (and even the last [preceding] 4T) don't seem so long ago, because we've actually seen them with our own eyes, in a sense, on film.

Somewhere out there, I'm sure, is a Boomer mom/dad living in fear that their little Millies will accidentally run across THOSE pictures from their college days while playing over with the kids of their college friends.

or...

Chad (1988) the Millie walks up and asks, "Dad, if it's so critically important to work and act as a team, how did it help the team when you set fire to the Bursar's office?", while holding photographic evidence from the university web site.

"Mom, what's brown acid?" - Millie Sarah, 1995 cohort.

Seriously, though, the new technologies recording image and sound might, I think, potentially matter.

For an example, what happens if, at the height of the Crisis, the day after the GC makes a moving and soon-to-be-legendary speech calling for duty, sacrifice, upright behavior, and courage in this ultimate test, film of the Gray Champion splashing naked in the mud at Woodstock with her boyfriend(s) suddenly surfaces all over TV and Internet?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-17 23:17 ]</font>

This IS interesting.
I have lots of pics of me as a baby with a beer in my hand and all my Dad's friends around me. I have other friends who actually got drunk (or high) as children from their careless still Awakening era- Boomer parents.
Do I remember alot of this? Not really.

I do know that my parents had a phase before materialistic, intolerant phase. I can recall that prior more community minded, spiritual, liberal phase. Maybe that is a sign of a 2T-3T memory, because they did change right around 1984-85.







Post#235 at 07-18-2002 08:03 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
07-18-2002, 08:03 PM #235
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

On 2002-07-18 07:43, Justin '77 wrote:


My wife and I lived together for the 10 or so months between getting engaged and getting married. Is that considered co-habitation (given that we were actively working on setting up our wedding for much of this time)?
My husband and I cohabitated from 1985 to 1986 when we got married, but we had been engaged the entire time we lived together. We got engaged only 3 months after we met--at 2 World Trade Center! : Is that a bad omen or what?
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#236 at 07-18-2002 10:26 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-18-2002, 10:26 PM #236
Guest

On 2002-07-18 18:03, Heliotrope wrote:
On 2002-07-18 07:43, Justin '77 wrote:


My wife and I lived together for the 10 or so months between getting engaged and getting married. Is that considered co-habitation (given that we were actively working on setting up our wedding for much of this time)?
My husband and I cohabitated from 1985 to 1986 when we got married, but we had been engaged the entire time we lived together. We got engaged only 3 months after we met--at 2 World Trade Center! : Is that a bad omen or what?
It is only bad if you did it on Sep 11th.
Not a good time and place to start a relationship.







Post#237 at 07-19-2002 03:20 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-19-2002, 03:20 PM #237
Guest

On 2002-07-18 20:26, Balanceman wrote:
On 2002-07-18 18:03, Heliotrope wrote:
We got engaged only 3 months after we met--at 2 World Trade Center! : Is that a bad omen or what?
It is only bad if you did it on Sep 11th.
Not a good time and place to start a relationship.
Specifically, September 11, 2001! :







Post#238 at 07-19-2002 04:26 PM by Donna Sherman [at Western New York, b. 1964 joined Jul 2001 #posts 228]
---
07-19-2002, 04:26 PM #238
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Western New York, b. 1964
Posts
228

My husband and I lived together for about 2 years before we were married, one of which we were engaged. I think we actually worked out a lot of our differences before we were married, although we would have had to work them out if we had gotten married earlier, anyway.

We were able to accomplish more goals by living together and saving on expenses than we would have been able to do living apart. Classic Xer: economic benefit/necessity.

We've been married 8 years, and I can't say I regret our living together beforehand!







Post#239 at 07-19-2002 11:50 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-19-2002, 11:50 PM #239
Guest

On 2002-07-18 12:31, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Without access to the private diaries or descriptions of private life as well as the celebrity projected this would seem quite impossible to do. Also, the celebrity status is often conferred upon those most distant from the "normal" range. Is Dubya a typical Texas rancher? The SWOTE a typical suburban housewife?
I expected we would use the same kind of information we do in many other threads, from news stories mainly, and any personal information people had heard about, or were willing to share from their own lives. The celebrity angle is the least accurate, but can be an interesting take on the discussion.

Many threads and ideas are tossed about here that are discussed with just the kind of information I suggest.

I would hate to see how you responded to my idea had I not complimented you in the previous post :lol:








Post#240 at 07-20-2002 07:44 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-20-2002, 07:44 AM #240
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-07-19 21:50, Earthshine wrote:
On 2002-07-18 12:31, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
Without access to the private diaries or descriptions of private life as well as the celebrity projected this would seem quite impossible to do. Also, the celebrity status is often conferred upon those most distant from the "normal" range. Is Dubya a typical Texas rancher? The SWOTE a typical suburban housewife?
I expected we would use the same kind of information we do in many other threads, from news stories mainly, and any personal information people had heard about, or were willing to share from their own lives. The celebrity angle is the least accurate, but can be an interesting take on the discussion.

Many threads and ideas are tossed about here that are discussed with just the kind of information I suggest.

I would hate to see how you responded to my idea had I not complimented you in the previous post :lol:

I was not aware of your kind words; my response would have been roughly the same had I known of them. HTH







Post#241 at 07-20-2002 06:49 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-20-2002, 06:49 PM #241
Guest

On 2002-07-20 05:44, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
I was not aware of your kind words; my response would have been roughly the same had I known of them. HTH
Fair enough. Blunt honesty is still honest.








Post#242 at 07-21-2002 12:12 AM by Ryan Stone [at tornado alley joined Jul 2002 #posts 12]
---
07-21-2002, 12:12 AM #242
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
tornado alley
Posts
12

this could be a good topic if you people actually talked about sex.
what's this shit? relationships? commitments?
not only are you all number crunching obsessives but you all are all conforming to some standard.
this is sad, people.
listen to the strokes or sleater kinney and set yourveslves free.
don't be afraid
music is the only truth
it's all good.
stop living in a box

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-20 22:14 ]</font>







Post#243 at 07-21-2002 01:38 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-21-2002, 01:38 AM #243
Guest

On 2002-07-20 22:12, Ryan Stone wrote:
this could be a good topic if you people actually talked about sex.
what's this shit? relationships? commitments?
not only are you all number crunching obsessives but you all are all conforming to some standard.
this is sad, people.
listen to the strokes or sleater kinney and set yourveslves free.
don't be afraid
music is the only truth
it's all good.
stop living in a box

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ryan Stone on 2002-07-20 22:14 ]</font>
Are we conforming, or do we find deeper meaning in sex when it is about more than about boffing someones brains out?

If it's just about that, why not find yourself a nice sheep and put on the Barry White CD

The nice thing about this country is you can say stupid things like you did and be allowed to do so without fear of retaliation. Of course, when you call the whole board morons, be ready to be flamed by everyone elses opinions as well :grin:

I find more and more to be amused about on this site every day. Thanks for the laugh, sheep man :lol:







Post#244 at 07-21-2002 01:39 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-21-2002, 01:39 AM #244
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-19 14:26, Donna Sherman wrote:


We've been married 8 years, and I can't say I regret our living together beforehand!
Here's something to ponder, regarding marriage, or more precisely, weddings.

Of late (meaning within living memory), IMO, the 'wedding industry' has gotten completely out of hand. By the 'wedding industry', I mean Bride magazine, professional wedding planners, caterers, etc, all of whom have a vested interest in pushing the idea that the best wedding is the one with the most guests, gifts, gourmet meals, and gasps of horror at the inevitable bill.

I don't hate weddings, but there are people out here, on modest incomes, who are spending $5000, $10,000, sometimes a lot more, on a fancy and elaborate wedding. Surprisingly often, the weddings are paid for using borrowed money, either by the bride's parents or the couple themselves.

Am I the only one who thinks the 'wedding fantasy' has lost touch with reality? I know it's natural to want a nice wedding, but stop and think: that money would go a long way, especially for a new couple with limited resources, in real-world bills, expenses, etc. It would be one thing if the people indulging this were wealthy, but its not just them.

It's hard enough starting out with limited incomes and resources (as many if not most couples do) without going into debt for the sake of the wedding! Also, when that much attention and forethought is lavished on the wedding, it looks suspiciously to me like someone is living out a fantasy without thinking about the fact that it's the marriage, not the wedding, that matters.

Is this a Generational thing? It almost seems like something the Silent would think up, but the timing seems wrong.








Post#245 at 07-21-2002 01:43 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
07-21-2002, 01:43 AM #245
Guest

On 2002-07-20 23:39, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the 'wedding fantasy' has lost touch with reality? I know it's natural to want a nice wedding, but stop and think: that money would go a long way, especially for a new couple with limited resources, in real-world bills, expenses, etc. It would be one thing if the people indulging this were wealthy, but its not just them.

It's hard enough starting out with limited incomes and resources (as many if not most couples do) without going into debt for the sake of the wedding! Also, when that much attention and forethought is lavished on the wedding, it looks suspiciously to me like someone is living out a fantasy without thinking about the fact that it's the marriage, not the wedding, that matters.

Is this a Generational thing? It almost seems like something the Silent would think up, but the timing seems wrong.
No. I agree. If you have 5 or 10K to spend, put a down payment on a house. Spending that much on a wedding is insane. There are kids starving in the damned streets for hecks sake.

I see more core and late wave Xers spending money on their own weddings, and so they sre spending less. Then again, I know a girl who got married a few years ago who had the choice of having her father either spend the 10 grand on a wedding, or buy her own small wedding and he would pay the down payment for her first home. She chose the wedding.








Post#246 at 07-21-2002 01:49 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-21-2002, 01:49 AM #246
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-20 23:43, Earthshine wrote:


No. I agree. If you have 5 or 10K to spend, put a down payment on a house. Spending that much on a wedding is insane. There are kids starving in the damned streets for hecks sake.

I see more core and late wave Xers spending money on their own weddings, and so they sre spending less. Then again, I know a girl who got married a few years ago who had the choice of having her father either spend the 10 grand on a wedding, or buy her own small wedding and he would pay the down payment for her first home. She chose the wedding.

I'm still single, so I haven't been through this personally, but what do wedding dresses and the like cost today? They've always trended toward the expensive, but some people I've heard are paying a lot for a dress that is basically going to be worn for part of one day, once (In theory, anyway. Is it considered acceptable now to wear the same wedding dress again at the second marriage?).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-20 23:50 ]</font>







Post#247 at 07-21-2002 08:12 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
07-21-2002, 08:12 AM #247
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

On 2002-07-20 23:49, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

They've always trended toward the expensive, but some people I've heard are paying a lot for a dress that is basically going to be worn for part of one day, once (In theory, anyway. Is it considered acceptable now to wear the same wedding dress again at the second marriage?).

In theory, if the first marriage was never consumated; it would be perfectly acceptable to wear that white dress again, in theory. HTH


p.s. If the dress wasn't a "symbol" of purity; wear it as often as needed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-21 06:15 ]</font>







Post#248 at 07-21-2002 09:25 AM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
07-21-2002, 09:25 AM #248
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

The irony is that, after a fortune is spent on a wedding, half of these people end up divorced.







Post#249 at 07-21-2002 02:08 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-21-2002, 02:08 PM #249
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-21 06:12, Virgil K. Saari wrote:
On 2002-07-20 23:49, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

They've always trended toward the expensive, but some people I've heard are paying a lot for a dress that is basically going to be worn for part of one day, once (In theory, anyway. Is it considered acceptable now to wear the same wedding dress again at the second marriage?).

In theory, if the first marriage was never consumated; it would be perfectly acceptable to wear that white dress again, in theory. HTH
LOL! I honestly wasn't thinking in those terms, until I saw your post!

I was merely thinking in terms of social custom along the same lines as not wearing a miniskirt to a funeral.

I wonder what percentage of Xers and Millies even know, today, what that white dress is supposed to signify?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-21 12:11 ]</font>







Post#250 at 07-21-2002 02:10 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
07-21-2002, 02:10 PM #250
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

On 2002-07-21 07:25, Tim Walker wrote:
The irony is that, after a fortune is spent on a wedding, half of these people end up divorced.
In all seriousness, I wonder if anyone has ever run the numbers comparing a:the cost of the wedding to b: the length of the marriage?

I wonder if there would be any correlation at all, positive or negative, between a and b?
-----------------------------------------