How much casual sex (not with prostitutes) went on in big cities
(Chicago, New York) in the 1920s? Was it commen for people to have
one-night-stands, or not? |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
17 Feb 2005 12:30 PST
I'm not sure how much -- or what sort -- of detail you're looking for,
but here's some excerpts from an article that appeared in the Chicago
Tribune in 1926:
-----
Chicago Tribune
June 14, 1926
AUTOS BLAMED FOR SCHOOL GIRL UNWED MOTHERS
"Autombiles with predatory divers were blamed by a Salvation Army
official for "an astounding number of young unmarried mothers." Col.
Margaret Bevil....said that forty-two per cent of the unmarried
mothers...at 15 Salvation Army maternity homes had been "school girls
of high or elementary grades, averaging 16 years of age."
...the majority of girls..."attributed their difficulties to
automobile flirtation."
Twenty years ago...homes were filled with women of mature age. Now
"...they are filled to capacity by school children."
-----
Does that get at what you're looking for?
What sort of additional information would you like as a full answer to
your question?
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
mattdemaret-ga
on
17 Feb 2005 15:24 PST
I am a professional screenwriter writing a script set in the 20s in
Chicago and I want to understand the way that men and women
interacted, dated, had sex...was there, despite the lack of
sophisticated birth control, much consensual unmarried sex? Were
women who had one night stands considered out of the norm? Was it
typical for a man and woman to meet in a bar (which, even during
Volstad did exist) and go somewhere and have sex without there being
some sort of relationship between them, or would that sort of thing
have been a rare, and strange occurance? Did women who slept around
immediatly acquire a bad reputation, or were they, in some circles,
merely considered independent? This is the sort of information for
which I am looking. Thank you.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
19 Feb 2005 16:19 PST
The theme that's repeated over and over in discussions of the 20's is
the emergence of dating. This lead to some formalized forms of
"petting", and human beings being what they are, a fair amount of
behavior that was something more than just petting.
I found one book that provided a bit of an overview:
-----
Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1939: Decades of Promise and Pain
by David E. Kyvig; Greenwood Press, 2002
Greater Sexual Freedom
The shift from calling to dating encouraged greater sexual exploration
and intimacy. Long before the rise of the dating system, young people
regularly experimented with kissing games. Engaged couples often
enjoyed what was coming to be called ?heavy petting,? and enough
people engaged in premarital intercourse that nearly one-in-ten
late-nineteenth-century brides went to the altar pregnant. Dating,
however, brought with it freer attitudes about sexuality and more
freedom to explore them. Movies provided ?how to do it? guides for the
inexperienced, and the culture of high schools and colleges, which
more were attending, encouraged young people to try things for
themselves. Prolonged kissing and embraces became accepted aspects of
romantic relationships. Necking and petting (the distinction depended
on whether the contact was above or below the shoulders) were
customary if not universal practices; evidence compiled later pointed
to a sharp rise in premarital sexual intercourse after World War I
with over four-fifths of males and nearly half of females
acknowledging participation. These gender differences reflected the
persistence of the ?double standard,? the widespread attitude that
sexually active mles were just ?sowing wild oats? and couldn?t be
expected to be faithful to a single mate, while women who behaved in
the same fashion abandoned their virtue. Although gender distinctions
and sexual attitudes in general were beginning to change, most of the
sexual activity that did take place was only with a single partner
whom the individual expected to marry.
-----
Is this sort of thing helpful, or are you looking more for an actual
write-up of what how a hot date might have unfolded in the Roaring
Twenties?
Let me know.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
mattdemaret-ga
on
19 Feb 2005 17:15 PST
Yeah, that is helpful, but I guess the deeper thing I am trying to
find is something about how slightly older women (late 20s say), who
worked with men (as secretaries I guess), who did not aspire to
marriage, but who did want to date and have sex--how these women
negotiated the times. How they were perceived, how they got through
their lives romantically. This character about whom I am writing is
single, has more than one partner, and does not feel bad about
that--but how did the community see women like this, and were women
like this able to live their lives out in the open at all. Please ask
for further clarification if necessary. Thanks.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
19 Feb 2005 19:36 PST
Here's another excerpt that suggests many women felt quite comfortable
with having it be known that they weren't at all prudish, and got
physical with men on more than occasion, BUT, it also seem important
to have eveyone believe a firm line had been drawn between getting
physical and going to far (whether the line actually was drawn or not
is another matter entirely...but the appearances were important).
Anyway, here's the excerpt:
-----
That petting should lead to actual illicit relations between the
petters was not advised nor countenanced among the girls with whom I
discussed it. They drew the line quite sharply. That it often did so
lead, they admitted, but they were not ready to allow that there were
any more of such affairs than there had always been. School and
college scandals, with their sudden departures and hasty marriages,
have always existed to some extent, and they still do. But only
accurate statistics, hard to arrive at, can prove whether or not the
sex carelessness of the present day extends to an increase of sex
immorality, or whether since so many more people go to college, there
is an actual decrease in the amount of it, in proportion to the number
of students. The girls seemed to feel that those who went too far were
more fools than knaves, and that in most cases they married. They
thought that hasty and secret marriages, of which most of them could
report several, were foolish, but after all about as likely to turn
out well as any others. Their attitude toward such contingencies was
disapproval, but it was expressed with a slightly amused shrug, a
shrug which one can imagine might have sat well on the shoulders of
Voltaire. In fact the writer was torn, in her efforts to sum up their
attitude, between classifying them as eighteenth century realists and
as Greek nymphs existing before the dawn of history!
-----
Does that help? If so...what more can I provide to make for a
complete answer to your question?
Let me know.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
mattdemaret-ga
on
20 Feb 2005 06:43 PST
...I guess the complete answer needs to explain the dating life,
sexual conduct, societal view on the working woman. All these bits of
answers seem to concern the young girl, of typical marrying age; I am
more interested in the slightly older woman, in her late 20s and how
she navigated the conventions of the day--how she dated and had sex if
she wanted to and how she was regarded for same. And also, how common
the one-night-stand was. Thank you.
|
