"Faux News uses sex.....

High EGT

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto
What I'm really jealous of is back then we didn't have today’s music lyrics, movies and TV programming that kid’s today get to enjoy. All I had was the occasional National Geographic’s of Southern Africa or Dad's magazine stuck under the mattress.
:frown:
 

Novus Collectus

New Member
Oh for crap's sake, give it up already. You didn't read the fine print, and now you're splitting hairs over whether marriages in the 50's were - oh who gives a crap? You were just friggin' wrong about it. Teen pregnancies for out of wedlock births were lower then. The rest of your argument is just talking out your butt.

Teen pregnancies were much higher back then and I was never wrong about that. Many of the marriages were when they had to because the girl got pregnant, so there was a lot of out of wedlock sex among teenagers that led to unplanned pregnancies. There may have been more births after they were married in time, but the pregnancies often occurred out of wedlock. To claim any different is desperation on your part.
The 50s were not a time of innocence by a long shot.
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
The 50s were not a time of innocence by a long shot.

They were a time of people being responsible for their actions.
Knock somebody up? You get married and at least attempt to be a family. Dump hot coffee in your lap? You grabbed a napkin not a lawyer.
Nobody celebrated stupidy like they do now.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Imagine...

They were a time of people being responsible for their actions.
Knock somebody up? You get married and at least attempt to be a family. Dump hot coffee in your lap? You grabbed a napkin not a lawyer.
Nobody celebrated stupidy like they do now.

...standing before a judge 30 years ago and making those claims.

I had the opportunity to participate first hand in our judicial system some 25 years ago. Person after person tried some lame excuse and the judge stopped everything and lectured us all on just paying the damn fine and not clogging his court. Then the guy before me actually told the judge that part of the reason for him being there was that his gout medication caused him to not be able to drive so well.

The judge looked at this guy and said, without hesitating, "Sir, I have never heard of alcohol being prescribed for gout. Guilty.'

I walked up, knees shaking, said 'guilty for driving without a license your honor'. He reduced the fine, cut the points and sent me on my way.

Nowadays, not only would there be a case for this dread disease, alcoholism, but perhaps an argument to be made for alternative medicine as well along with some sort of plea to let drunk driving slide.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Teen pregnancies were much higher back then and I was never wrong about that. Many of the marriages were when they had to because the girl got pregnant, so there was a lot of out of wedlock sex among teenagers that led to unplanned pregnancies. There may have been more births after they were married in time, but the pregnancies often occurred out of wedlock. To claim any different is desperation on your part.
The 50s were not a time of innocence by a long shot.

And I maintain that you're still talking out of your butt because your argument rests on something you've never proven but only conjectured.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

Your ONLY argument is data you've pulled out of thin air - that teen weddings largely occurred because the girl was pregnant, and you've got nothing to support that. And that's because there's no data to support that at all.

In each piece of data I've seen reviewing teenage pregancy, the largest spike is in the 18-19 range -- right after people graduate from high school. In some parts of the country, especially the South, that's just slightly below the median age of a bride back in those days.

Can you prove your statement, or are you just making it up to "desperately" prove *your* point?
 

Novus Collectus

New Member
And I maintain that you're still talking out of your butt because your argument rests on something you've never proven but only conjectured.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

Your ONLY argument is data you've pulled out of thin air - that teen weddings largely occurred because the girl was pregnant, and you've got nothing to support that. And that's because there's no data to support that at all.

In each piece of data I've seen reviewing teenage pregancy, the largest spike is in the 18-19 range -- right after people graduate from high school. In some parts of the country, especially the South, that's just slightly below the median age of a bride back in those days.

Can you prove your statement, or are you just making it up to "desperately" prove *your* point?
Sure, no problem.

In the mid 1950s the teen pregnancy rate for the ages of 15-19 was close to 100 per 1000 women.
http://www.amsa.org/pdf/teen_pregnancy.pdf
In 2004/2005 the teen pregnancy rate was about 40 per 1000 women.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_02.pdf
AlterNet: Sex and Relationships: The Teenage Birth Rate Has Dropped to a 65-Year Low


In the mid 1950s the percent of pregnant teens that conceived before marriage was about 38% with about half of all women who got knocked up going on to get married before the kid arrived.
38% of 96 per 10000 women is 36.48 teen women that got pregnent outside of wedlock in the mid part of the 1950s per 1000 teen women.
http://www.clasp.org/publications/teenmariage02-20.pdf
About 17% of all teen oregnancies in 2005 were after marriage and it is estimated that at least 10% were planned conceptions that occured after marriage.
Teen Births
http://www.clasp.org/publications/teenmariage02-20.pdf
10% of 40 per 1000 pregnant teen women is 4. 40 - 4 = 36 out of wedlock conceptions per 1000 teen women in 2005
last time I checked 36.48 is a higher number than 36. There were just as many out of wedlock pregnancies among teens in the mid 1950s than there are today.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Sure, no problem..

Not bad. I apologize for presuming you just made it up.

On the other hand -

I can't find hard data for *pregnancies* over fifty years - except that most of the data you referenced refers to teenage BIRTHS. At least three separate sites I found yield a much higher figure than the general 40 per 1000 - as high as 111 and as low as 84 - factoring in abortion and fetal loss. Without comparable numbers from the 50's, there's not any good way to compare the data. I think it's probably a fair *guess* that fetal losses were comparable but that the proportion of abortion was lower, but I'd be guessing.
 

Plan B

New Member
What I'm really jealous of is back then we didn't have today’s music lyrics, movies and TV programming that kid’s today get to enjoy. All I had was the occasional National Geographic’s of Southern Africa or Dad's magazine stuck under the mattress.
:frown:


Amen. My 15 year old is getting whipsawed...
 
Top