617
Anon watches a romance movie (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 1 year ago (32 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Ok but that’s different than it being illegal. You had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    "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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    '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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's an example of how extreme the rule could be, tone-policing troll. It is unequivocal proof you couldn't just go get a divorce, because the state would almost certainly say, fuck off. Because - in general - by default - it wasn't fucking legal. It was so restricted that zero women in an entire state were granted one, for thirty years, and you think other states granting more than zero means it was easy sailing.

    What the fuck else do you think divorce being illegal would look like? What else could those words mean?

    If divorce required a tax stamp, would it suddenly click for you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    i never said it was easy sailing I said it wasn’t illegal and it wasn’t.

    You keep trying to move the goalposts sp your claim could have merit and it does not. You could divorce. I know this because several if my ancestors did in the 1800s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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).”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    'My family met the extreme exceptions where it was tolerated, so being otherwise illegal isn't real.'

    Horse: drink.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The only thing you have convinced me of is that you do not understand what moving the goalposts are.

    Again 3 relatives have divorced. No one faced legal penalties for doing so and it was approved by the state which means it is not illegal.

    The third definition is the relevant one here

    Legal -

    legal 1 of 2 adjective le·​gal ˈlē-gəl Synonyms of legal 1 : of or relating to law She has many legal problems. 2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE a legal government b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR a corporation is a legal but not a real person c : established by law especially : STATUTORY the legal test of mental capacity —K. C. Masteller 3 :conforming to or permitted by law or established rules

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    If not for those specific circumstances... could they have ever been legally divorced?

    No.

    As I've explained five times: there are no penalties for things that can't happen. When the state refused to let people divorce - which they did, at their discretion, by default, for centuries - people just stayed married. It wasn't a crime, it was not legal.

    Divorce wasn't legal the way marrying a horse isn't legal. You can have the ceremony. It doesn't count. Per your chosen definition: it has no formal status derived from law. Moving goalposts is what you're about to do to pretend I haven't given you everything you fucking asked for.

    You declared "you had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country." Rights are the thing where you have to get beaten to exercise them, yeah? Nowadays you have a right to divorce. In the past times, it took some heinous shit to "escape the bonds of marriage." You had to beg the church, or the state, and they could just say no. They almost always said no.

    And there was nothing you could do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    mate, my parents divorced in the 80's, the stigma was REAL

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There was stigma but that's not the same as it being illegal. The fact your parents ARE divorced proves it was not illegal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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 "forbidden love" tropes. Although most don't actually dream of doing those things, it's pure fantasy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent