• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 day ago

    This makes me wonder how many women are quite unhappy in their marriage, and are willing to jump at the nearest opportunity.

    Kinda depressing to think about, actually.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Boomer tropes exist because divorce was illegal.

      You were expected to get married and stay married. You’d have unprotected sex with your high school boyfriend, you’re goddamn right you were gonna keep the baby, and you were going to live together until one of you died. Even if it meant separate beds and not asking why he frequented that bar by the docks.

      Blame Catholicism. That’s usually a fair bet.

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        When was divorce illegal?

        Edit: Divorce has never been illegal since the founding of the USA. It was uncommon, but it was granted by courts which means it was legal just uncommon.

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          16 hours ago

          The US didn’t get no-fault divorce until after the moon landing.

          Prior to that:

          Divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.”

          Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination (the suing spouse also being guilty).

                • Taleya@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  well there’s also the fact this was in Australia.

                  No fault divorce was a huge game changer for the US and other countries - prior to this there had to be a party at fault, and this had to be provable fault. So while it was not technically illegal, it still had a great deal of punitive legalese tied up into it that made it very very hard to do.

            • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              As if it’s something you can go out and do and be punished for. No: it simply was not allowed. The state said no.

              This is stupid hair-splitting. You did not have a right to shit - you had to beg. Virginia did not grant any woman a divorce for an entire generation.

              • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                “After the colonies gained independence, states joining the union liberalized their divorce laws, as did the associated territories, with many permitting local courts to grant divorce. A few retained authority to grant divorce at the state level. In Virginia, for example, petitioners had to apply to the Virginia General Assembly for a divorce, and during the first thirty years of statehood, no female petitioner was granted a divorce.[1]”

                So it really looks like Virginia was the exception and not the rule. It wasn’t illegal at all and there was a legal framework for how it worked which, again, suggests that the initial claim that it was illegal was incorrect

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States

                • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 hours ago

                  ‘Here’s an example of how extremely legally restricted divorce was.’

                  ‘Nuh uh, here’s the same example.’

                  Fuck off.

                  There’s a legal framework for when you’re allowed to kill someone. Under narrow circumstances - the state will tolerate it. Otherwise, they sure don’t. The only reason nobody went to jail for an unregistered divorce is that there is no such thing.

                  And even then, surely some people went to jail for enabling divorce, when a cottage industry popped up to fabricate excuses. Because excuses were required. Otherwise: divorce was not legal. The state would not recognize it. Without a very specific reason, you could not legally get divorced.

                  • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    I didnt give you the same example. I gave you the context for why your example was the exception and not the rule.

                    That was an incorrect statement Im not sure why you are throwing a temper tantrum over the fact.

                • binchoo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  Did you even read your source?

                  “Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.” Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination(the suing spouse also being guilty).”

                  • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    Yes that’s called the legal framework for how it worked. I have three ancestors who received divorces in the USA in the 1800s (two had kids together, and one never had kids with the divorced spouse). The two that had kids and divorced were over her infidelity and the third was beaten by her drunk husband.

                    I have no idea why you think it was illegal after the source tells you how it worked.

    • TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Work with elderly. Coworker said “how many of these women do you think have gone their entire live without an orgasm.” It connected a lot of dots. The no orgasm to elderly fox news white women is the school shooter pipeline for wasp women.

    • Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      While there are quite a few people who would jump ship from their marriage, that’s not why the trope so popular. It’s just that a lot of people like different forms of “forbidden love”. Although most don’t actually dream of doing those things, it’s pure fantasy.

      • sthetic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah, fictional romance is more interesting when it’s forbidden in some way. Otherwise, who wants to read a romance novel about a nice couple who meets at the library when they’re both single, and proceeds to have a wholesome relationship? Great for real life, but boring to read about or watch a movie about.

        Many of the traditional reasons for forbidding a romance are gone in the contemporary world. Different race, different social class, same gender, rival families? Not convincing.

        So you’re left with stuff that’s plausible but icky, like being in a relationship already, or being teacher/student or boss/employee. Or pornographic stuff like step-family. Those are problematic and people will criticize them.

        You could set your story in a historical setting in which the countess and the gardener are truly forbidden from passion, or a fantasy world where the ogopogos and sasquatches are sexy rivals.

        Or just have a lukewarm type of forbidden-ness, like “his family’s greeting-card store is in competition with my family’s greeting-card store” or “we’re coworkers.”