Whatever Happened to Shotgun Weddings?

[Gabriel_Gale]

caroljm36:

No one but me seems to remember this, but prior to the Pill there were quite a few embittered men who felt roped into marriage because of their “fiancé’s” pregnancy, when they thought the woman was contracepting by IUD or rhythm what have you. (My mother swore by the rhythm method.) It became a sneaky way to snag a husband–“accidentally” get pregnant and he’ll do the honorable thing. Plenty of men did (then griped about it later), but there was a bit of a revolt in the early 60s. Then when the Pill came along a lot of men had the attitude, now you don’t have any excuse for getting PG. Then when abortion became legal, it was you have no excuse to not GET RID OF IT.

Of course, through all this the man gets his way and expects no consequences. Now it seems like we’ve come to the point where it is a point of pride with many women to raise kids without a father. Like, who needs 'em. Lots of blame to go around, going way back before the 1960s. Whose fault, I don’t know.

That’s one reason I find the doctrine of Original Sin so compelling.

caroljm36,
The behavior of men is no surprise or mystery. I think that TCB’s question was about parents and society.

TCB:

Why did parents and society give up on shot gun weddings?

I agree with TCB. I don’t think that Wilcox addressed the change in our culture. Why did families and neighbors suddenly become so willing to allow men to skate on those traditional women who did not want to kill their children?

 

[manualman]

Because the families and neighbors themselves are now contracepting too. Their attitudes about sex, marriage and responsibility are as destroyed by ABC as the young pregnant couple.

It’s amazing. The secular human culture of our society has an AMAZING ability to identify and articulate moral problems, then propose solutions that make that problem FAR worse! Think about it: Contraception, Abortion, feminism, welfare, education reform, homosexual bashing, the list goes on and on.

 

[puzzleannie]

a close family member married shortly before I did, and had her baby a bit too soon. she confided that the priest asked them before their marriage quite bluntly if it was a shot-gun wedding, and her hub said, yep, but there are no bullets in the gun.

 

[TCB]

Thanks for your responses.

I would like to propose another solution for the disappearance of shotgun weddings aka men doing the honorable thing.

• One type of male-female relationship that has never been under the shotgun was the john and the prostitute. In fact, even if a woman was suspected of promiscuous behavior, men were considered free of their obligation. Some would argue that this was simply adue to the fact that genetic test weren’t available to prove parternity. Wrong. Men were not obligated because the sexual encounter was under terms which did not include marriage, even if procreation occurred. There was (and still is) no sympathy for the prostitute. She knew the terms of the deal.
• Prior to ABC:
• Sexual activity was tied procreation
• Procreation was tied marriage.
• Sexual activity was tied marriage. The marital link © extended even to premarital sex. Men promised either marriage or to do the right thing. The only way a man could get out of a marriage honorably was to convince the community that the woman was a whore.
• Negate either premise and the conclusion is negated. ABC negates the first premise (a) and therefore severed the link between sex and marriage.
• Premarital sexual activity is increasingly viewed in ways similar to prostitution. No sympathy for women, she knew what she was getting into. She had a choice. Young women are increasing seen as mere sex objects for e.g. MTV and hook-ups (who dates anymore). In urban communities where out of wedlock birth are the highest, women are routinely referred to as whores.
• We don’t have shotgun weddings because ABC change the terms of premarital sex into a deal remarkably similar to the oldest institution in the world.

 

[otm]

caroljm36:

No one but me seems to remember this, but prior to the Pill there were quite a few embittered men who felt roped into marriage because of their “fiancé’s” pregnancy, when they thought the woman was contracepting by IUD or rhythm what have you. (My mother swore by the rhythm method.) It became a sneaky way to snag a husband–“accidentally” get pregnant and he’ll do the honorable thing. Plenty of men did (then griped about it later), but there was a bit of a revolt in the early 60s. Then when the Pill came along a lot of men had the attitude, now you don’t have any excuse for getting PG. Then when abortion became legal, it was you have no excuse to not GET RID OF IT.

Of course, through all this the man gets his way and expects no consequences. Now it seems like we’ve come to the point where it is a point of pride with many women to raise kids without a father. Like, who needs 'em. Lots of blame to go around, going way back before the 1960s. Whose fault, I don’t know.

That’s one reason I find the doctrine of Original Sin so compelling.

You pretty much have it on the mark, except that the sexual revolution went into full swing in 1930; and the Pill was discovered/invented/whatever in the late 40s or in the 50’s.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

otm:

You pretty much have it on the mark, except that the sexual revolution went into full swing in 1930; and the Pill was discovered/invented/whatever in the late 40s or in the 50’s.

The seeds were planted, watered and fertilized in the 30’s. However, the statistics demonstrating the dramtic increase in out of wedlock births, divorce and shack ups from the 60’s - today are undeniable.

The blossoming of this poisoned fruit has definitely occured after the Pill.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

TCB:

I don’t buy it. I think that Wilcox misses the point. Fathers and the community held the shotgun to a young man’s head. Why did parents and society give up on shot gun weddings?

We do have a variant of shot gun weddings called paternity suits. We fatherhood is reduced to sperm, then why do we need marrige?