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.
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.
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).
“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
‘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.
“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).”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
The amount of pirates on the covers of romance novels is the direct result of this.
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.”
And the hallmark channel answer. I had a coworker who would watch those every single day. I vomit at the visuals (how do they get them so consistent and apparent? You can tell just from the opening shots and title!) of a hallmark to this day.
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.
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.
You can freely ignore the dipshit who thinks “almost nobody was permitted to divorce” means “people went to jail for back-alley divorces.”
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.
The US didn’t get no-fault divorce until after the moon landing.
Prior to that:
Ok but that’s different than it being illegal. You had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.
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.
“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
‘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.
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.
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).”
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.
mate, my parents divorced in the 80’s, the stigma was REAL
There was stigma but that’s not the same as it being illegal. The fact your parents ARE divorced proves it was not illegal
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.
It was legal. There was no criminal penalty for it and it was handled by the legal system. It being uncommon is not the same as it being illegal.
No fault divorce made it easier and more common. It did not legalize it by any definition of that word.
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.
Why are you making this very specifically racial? Most of the Fox News staff are not of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. You can just say white women.
To be goofy. Mainly just didn’t want to say white women again lol
ok that makes sense
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.
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.”
The amount of pirates on the covers of romance novels is the direct result of this.
And the hallmark channel answer. I had a coworker who would watch those every single day. I vomit at the visuals (how do they get them so consistent and apparent? You can tell just from the opening shots and title!) of a hallmark to this day.
s/women/people/
“You know what would make this marriage better? Cheating!”
*people because it can be escapism for any person in a less ideal relationship.
Lots