<p>actually I think you mean " the other way around" CGM
how * big* some babies were even though they were “early” wink- wink</p>
<p>My H was born 6 months after the wedding and you have never seen ( well before the days of PEOPLE magazine) a fatter baby!</p>
<p>Obviously I was referring to the time before illegal abortions. Typically, middle class young girls did not have access to illegal abortions. Most teens would have had no idea where to go to get one - nor would they have had the money to pay for one.</p>
<p>yes… in those days, SECOND babies took 9 months to come; FIRST babies came anytime… (but again, typically born to a rather committed couple – not a one night stand).</p>
<p>Something to think about, I would wager that many of those in “committed” relationships might not have as careful with regards to use of condoms, thinking, well, if something happens, we can always get married, so more pregnancies results from those relationships</p>
<p>And perhaps, those having one night stands might have been more careful in that regard- in timing of intercourse, use of condoms, etc</p>
<p>i would hazard a guess that in at least some cases this was and is true</p>
<p>cgm: </p>
<p>i just don’t think that many girls from so-called “middle class” homes got involved in one night stands back then. I had a lot of friends and belonged to a sorority so I knew lots of girls and they were not having one night stands – they had boyfriends and those relationships “progressed” into sex after a period of time (First base - for a bit, then second base for a bit, etc, etc.).</p>
<p>I use the example of girls from middle class homes because that is where the change in trend seems to be the most obvious.</p>
<p>I agree with jlauer. I did not know many (actually make that ANY) girls when I was in high school or college who were that free with sex. (There were rumors about one or two, but they were not girls I personally knew, and they were definitely looked down upon for such behavior.) Girls usually would only have sex with boys they loved, or thought they loved, at least. Boys may have been more willing to do the one night stands, but most girls were not. At least not in the crowds I hung out with. Attitudes really HAVE changed in the last 50 years, as has behavior.</p>
<p>I would think that " good" girls- may have been more likely not to use contraception because planning for it- would be tantamount to “doing it”.
If they didn’t intend on marrying their boyfriend anyway- plans for college- leaving the small town- they might be more likely to use protection
I would think that not many girls put themselves in a situation where a “one night stand” would occur.
Probably contraception failure occured quite a bit as well- putting on the condom too late- the "withdrawal " method etc- aren’t very reliable.
I think scare stories about girls who had to “go visit aunt Eloise” for a year, was probably enough to make young women pretty hesitant about getting to that point.</p>
<p><<<< I would think that not many girls put themselves in a situation where a “one night stand” would occur… I think scare stories about girls who had to “go visit aunt Eloise” for a year, was probably enough to make young women pretty hesitant about getting to that point.<<<<<</p>
<p>Emerald:</p>
<p>I think you are right. My friends and sorority sisters (and I ) just didn’t go out with the type of guys that would EXPECT sex right away. I know, I lived in the dark ages BUT that is why those on this thread should be able to admit that there has been a 'change" in recent decades.</p>
<p>If you became of age before * The happy Hooker- The Total woman- The Sensous woman- Fear of Flying*, then sex to you unless you read * the Kama Sutra* probably consisted of missionary position.
Certainly not the um oral that we hear about kids using these days for fear of pregnancy- I think that is one of the biggest changes
Of course I also know kids who think “oral sex” is french kissing ;)</p>
<p>Kids in the 70’s were definitely not having oral sex the way kids are today. I doubt anyone can disagree with that.</p>
<p>Kids were having sex, but it wasn’t casual in high school (couples thought they were ‘in love’). In college, I knew plenty of people having casual sex. Plenty of one night stands, or intercourse after having been on a couple of dates.</p>
<p>And trust me, I am definitely old enough to have lived right with you, jaluer, in the dark ages. LOL!</p>
<p>interesting study…it explains alot and wow, everybody here was somewhat right!!! </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_1-02.html[/url]”>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_1-02.html</a></p>
<p>…Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart a). Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races…</p>
<p>Unmarried childbearing. Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000 (see chart a). Two factors are at play. The first is that marriage in the teen years, which was not uncommon in the 1950s, has by now become quite rare. (By the mid-1990s, the typical age of first marriage in the United States had risen to just over 25 for women and 27 for men.) The second is that this trend has extended to pregnant teens as well: In contrast to the days of the “shotgun marriage,” very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born…</p>
<p>
Well, I don’t know about sorority life - my college didn’t have them at the time… but the one-night stand was a staple of life in a co-ed dorm. There were a few guys who seemed dead set on working their way through every female in the building, one night at a time.</p>
<p>Calmom: Ewwww. :/</p>
<p>
Nowadays, that’s almost all men except for the religious ones and a few other exceptions. </p>
<p>CGM: does that study include those who have abortions - to the tune of 1.5 million per year? Also, 1959 was before *Griswold<a href=“1965”>/i</a> and *Eisenstadt<a href=“1972”>/i</a>, so contraceptives weren’t even legal. To me, you’re comparing apples and oranges - 85% of women who do not use birth control will get pregnant in a year, compared to about 3% with correct use of condoms. You can’t even begin to use pregnancy rates pre- & post- birth control as a proxy for sex.</p>
<p>mommusic – I’d have to say that the bigger problem was the drinking. I’m sure that many of the girls would not have been nearly as willing partners if they weren’t so soused at the time.</p>
<p>my quote: My friends and sorority sisters (and I ) just didn’t go out with the type of guys that would EXPECT sex right away.</p>
<p>aries quote: Nowadays, that’s almost all men except for the religious ones and a few other exceptions. </p>
<p>That’s why I do think there has been a change in recent years/decades. I don’t know why some keep 'fighting" this idea.</p>
<p>cal mom: I’d have to say that the bigger problem was the drinking. I’m sure that many of the girls would not have been nearly as willing partners if they weren’t so soused at the time.</p>
<p>but that is part of the problem. If (many) women are “soused” at the time they engage in casual one night stand “hook ups” then they aren’t really giving “full consent”. (I’m not saying that they are all raped, but I’m saying that they would not have agreed to participate if their judgment wasn’t altered from booze.) </p>
<p>so… is one of the differences today the possibility that there are MORE males (than before) that will try to get a girl intoxicated so she will give consent to a hook up? (I never once had a guy try to get me drunk in order to score and I dated a lot of guys (and a lot of frat guys) but that was in the 70’s and early 80’s.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That is one of the point of this thread. There are some dynamics “playing out” already and there will be more to come. I think some dynamics will be good, some neutral, and some not so good. I think that having such a conversation can help avoid some of the “not so good” dynamics.</p>
<p>One dynamic may be that there won’t be as many kids to share the care-taking of an elderly parent.</p>
<p>I remember now what I was thinking earlier-
not only were women much more aware of the ramifications of premartial sex in the days before unwed motherhood became fashionable- men were very much aware.
I remember some pretty hot and heavy sessions where we remained pretty clothed , it wasn’t frankly that I was insisting on it- but that the boys didn’t push. I don’t get the impression that - teenage sex is quite as “chaste” anymore- which actually is a shame- I have some pretty fond memories of those big backseats 
Not that I think we should go back to where birth control was harder to get, but it isn’t foolproof-</p>
<p>oops… somehow my post number 218 ended up on the wrong thread… How’d that happen? Yikes!!!</p>