#Trial Marriage

[handeaux]

Cincinnati Gasped At The Idea Of ‘Trial Marriages,’ But Practiced Them Anyway

Judge Stanley Struble was fed up. As he looked over his docket in 1929, the judge grew suspicious that the Hamilton County Courts were being forced into abetting the immoral practice known as the “trial marriage.” It was increasingly common, Struble noticed, for Ohio teenagers to elope to Northern Kentucky, where marriage laws were much looser, and then, when the match proved unsatisfactory, to ask Ohio courts to annul the union on the basis of their immaturity. Judge Struble told the Cincinnati Post [30 November 1929]:

“These marriages seem to be becoming a habit among youthful couples, and clerks who issue licenses in such cases seem to be interested only in obtaining the fees, the same as would appear the case of those who perform these marriage ceremonies.”

Judge Struble held two annulment appeals aside until further investigation revealed the motivation behind those cases. The couples placed under the microscope were Leola Stouder McCloskey, who testified that she was only 16 when she married 19-year-old William McCloskey in Covington in 1926 and Elizabeth Bruenen Edwards, married at age 16 to Robert Edwards in Newport, also in 1926. In neither case did any testimony reveal why each couple had waited three years before seeking annulment.

Judge Struble was reacting to a controversial topic that had stirred debate in Cincinnati since at least 1906 – the idea that temporary marriages, giving couples a no-fault option to leave the marriage after a brief trial period, were the solution to the social problems of divorce. The idea was most popularly promoted by pioneering anthropologist Elsie Clews Parsons in her 1906 book, “The Family.” Almost from the day it was published, Doctor Parsons’ book was widely (if surreptitiously) read and just as widely condemned. The Post [23 November 1906] was editorially outraged, claiming that it was already too easy to terminate a marriage:

“The reform is needed in the other direction. We need to get rid of the feeling that marriage is a mere experiment.”

In condemning the concept of trial marriage, The Post had lots of company. Doctor Sarah Siewers, one of Cincinnati’s foremost suffragists, told the Post [20 November 1906]:

“Abominable! Who ever heard of a woman making such a fool of herself? Why, the plan Mrs. Parsons proposes means the end of society and the home and a reversal to the dark ages. The whole thing is disgusting to me. The only solution to the divorce problem is for men to behave themselves better and for women to insist on being treated as equals, not as inferiors or slaves.”

Mrs. Jessie Oliphant, described as a “Norwood club woman,” declined to comment:

“It is a very serious problem that Mrs. Parsons has started out to solve. The subject is very distasteful to me and I would rather not discuss it.”

Judge John A Caldwell was four-square against the idea:

“Trial marriage could be no marriage at all, and would ultimately destroy the marriage relation altogether. Such a system would destroy the home, the greatest of all our institutions, and would illegitimatize thousands of children”

The more opinions the Post published in opposition to trial marriage, the more letters it received in support of the concept. Furniture dealer Maurice C. Williams wrote [26 November 1906]:

“The views of Mrs. Parsons, as expressed in the book, ‘The Family,’ are as the faint rays of a dawning day which become gradually more resplendent until the shimmering light gives way to the sun in all its glory, casting its benignant influence over all. So it will be with man. The ideas advanced are along the lines of altruism.”

In the same issue, cabinet maker Fred Walthard (Yes, most of the supporters of trial marriage were men.) wrote:

“The majority of marriage ceremonies still take place in churches or similar places, where a priest is the ‘matador.’ But you don’t find one couple out of a thousand that are advanced enough to seek the judgement of a reliable physician concerning their match. I am afraid the divorce problem will never be solved so long as law and religion have everything to say about marriage and science nothing.”

An unnamed judge of the Hamilton County courts dabbled in statistics and informed the Cincinnati Post [28 October 1909] that all marriages were trial marriages anyway, and that he had the data to prove it. Looking over his cases for the past month, the judge found 140 divorce suits. Of these, 107 requests for divorce were filed by couples married less than 10 years:

“’Proving,’ said a Judge of the Hamilton-co. courts, ‘that marriage is naturally a 10-year-trial proposition. The figures indicate to me that couples who manage to live together for 10 years will in most cases stay married the rest of their lives, and the couples unsuited for each other usually find it out before 10 years are over.”

The anonymous judge scoffed at the idea of a trial marriage, since his experience showed that all marriages had a natural trial period built in. A closer look at his numbers revealed that 73 divorces – more than half of the month’s total – involved marriages that had not yet marked a five-year anniversary.

Spotting a saucy topic, the entertainment industry jumped on the trial marriage bandwagon. Cincinnati audiences enjoyed a play and a couple of silent films based on the trial marriage concept.

As late as the rock ‘n’ roll era, the Post’s medical advice columnist, Dr. George W. Crane, warned young women to avoid over-sexed men who proposed this immoral arrangement [16 September 1958]:

“Trial marriage usually is suggested by a person who may feel sexual infatuation but no true love. And there is a whale of a difference! Trial marriage definitely does NOT benefit the girl. She makes the sacrifices and is likely to be left pregnant and unable to earn a living for herself.”

[deadrayg2mf]

I Married a Beast (Prime Mating Agency #7) by Regine Abel

I have to say, for a series with a cover style similar to others that I would normally bash on... they are not the worst "real life men turned into alien" covers. They are actually probably the best because some work that was not just beginner photoshop skills was put into them. Anyways, here is my part two of my back-to-back Regine Abel reviews!

This book immediately captured me with the female lead proclaiming two paragraphs in that she was a proud monster fucker. Preach, sister. Belle is an artist with a penchant for the otherworldly, both as her muse and romance interest, which is how she finds herself preparing for an interview with the founder of the Prime Mating Agency. Her goal is to get a beastly husband who's rough on the outside but sweet to her with plenty of strange features to boot. After some time spent discovering she is not there for the all-out strangeness the worlds have to offer her, her matchmaker settles on who he deems to be the perfect male for her (and he is always right... I mean 7 out of 7 books so far, who would dare to question Kayog).

Bayron is a familiar face if you've read the previous books, he comes to us from a previous interaction from book 2 I Married a Naga. He's got four eyes, four arms, and a beastly personality that he lays to the wayside for his beauty. (That's right, it's Beauty and the Beast references galore). He's also got double the package to please her with. That's right, folks, more DP. ~(˘▾˘~) (double penetration)

This is another great low angst 302-page addition to the series. As always, the primary plot is focused on their love story, getting Belle introduced to his society and way of life while also seeing Bayron willing to make concessions when it comes to some human aspects he isn't used to. They are a fun couple to watch fall in love with each other, they have a healthy relationship with open communication mostly and a never-ending appetite for each other. It even brings back some issues from in the second book that get resolved in a way that adds to the book ten-fold.

I love seeing past couples we've met through the series brought back as well, it makes for some great unity between the books. This can also be found between I Married a Birdman and I Married a Minotaur. Please, please, please check out this series! It's hit after hit and I promise you won't be wasting your time! 9.5/10 (-.5 for all the times Belle made me cringe with some monster fucker comment)

Would I read again? Yeah!

Would I recommend? I am literally begging at this point... I will get on my knees!（ －||－）

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I have never seen this man in my life.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[wonder-worker]

I've been thinking about the tragedy of Elizabeth Woodville living to see the end of her family name.

I don't mean her family with her husband, which lived on through her daughter and grandson. I mean her own.

Her sisters died, one by one, many of them after 1485. When Elizabeth died, only Katherine was left, and she would die before the turn of the century as well.

All her brothers died, too. Lewis died in childhood. John was executed. Anthony was murdered. Lionel died suddenly in the peak of Richard's reign, unable to see his niece become queen. Edward perished at war. Richard died in grieving peace. For all the violence and judgement the family endured, it was "an accident of biology" that ended their line: none of the brothers left heirs, and the Woodville name was extinguished. We know the family was aware of this. We know they mourned it, too:

“Buy a bell to be a tenor at Grafton to the bells now there, for a remembrance of the last of my blood.”

Elizabeth lived through the deposition and death of her young sons, and lived to see the end of her own family name. It must have been such a haunting loss, on both sides.

[offical-ouroboros]

Franco turns me into a pathetic husk of a person he's literally so pretty I don't understand why people can't see that I love him so much

"He's a bad guy" MY BROTHER IN CHRIST THIS IS OUTLAST.

some people who say Franco is so bad are the same to like ppl like Eddie and Trager like... You do know they're in the same boat? Right? You know that right? "Oh the trauma-" BEING A MOB BABY ISN'T TRAUMATIZING??? 😭😭😭

Back to the homosexuality

Franco, please sir, I'm on my fucking knees here, begging you. I'll kiss your damn shoes if I have to I'm JUST asking to be your girlfriend please man I wanna worship the ground you walk on.

[corallapis]

ya there's def something that feels like a legal official next of kin situation abt missy receiving twelve's confession dial AND seven taking the master's remains back to gallifrey

[yonemurishiroku]

Hadkanon, - Demigods get married. Yes, when they are still teenagers, but they don't have long to live anyway.

If they find someone and fall in love passionately and for a long time, thanks aphrodite, this happens quite often, they make an ordinary proposal with a ring and go to a big house to ask blessing of Chiron and, if they are lucky, of Dionysus.

After receiving the blessing, they choose a place they like in the vicinity of the camp and invite their friends and family, arranging a modest ceremony.

the ceremony itself is quite simple - some chosen friend of theirs acts as a priest and, asking for Hera's blessing, concludes their marriage, and the bride and groom themselves share one pomegranate and give each other wine from their cups.

in the end, the couple in love is enveloped in a soft glow. Hera concluded their marriage and now they are husband and wife.

this sounds so sweet and also the concept of demigod teen marriage reflects perfectly why Luke decided to usurp the gods. never bother to keep their children alive long enough to have a life but give them blessing of a shortened, hastened house-playing? luke has all the reasons to bring them down.

[venolfy]

One day I saw recolor for Miles Edgeworth clothes on his wiki photo on Pinterest and long time ago I was like: Why not to make this?

So here I am, but I couldn't decided which color for their wedding clothes will be, so I create more than one ^_^

[penaltyboxboxbox]

i love your parents au so much I think about it all the time!! thank you for putting it out there ❤

i love the parents au too i literally think about it all the time...im always theorizing..........im so glad others enjoy it especially since it started out as something so self indulgent that i didnt know if ppl would be into dkwhkdnskd

[asurrogateblog]

I love how everyone in pink floyd explicitly refers to the band breakup as a divorce they're really doing all of the work for us

[meirimerens]

got the tldr of the vid that I'm Not Watching All That & somewhat amusing how the straw breaking the camel's back for people over James Somerton is his blatant and unashamed plagiarism (as it should be genuinely i don't think you can nor should recover from this) like he hasn't regurgitated for years vile, unempathetic, ahistorical and Purely Just Wrong information about gay history including about the fight for legal same-sex marriage in the US and the AIDS crisis. like an alarming amount of people truly heard his ass say "all the good fun funky artistic and radical gays died of aids and all those who were left were unfun stuck-up prudes and conservatives also the fight for legal same-sex marriage was an assimilationist ploy by the latter who just wanted big gay weddings" as if the gay men who survived the epidemic didn't literally lose lovers and friends and entire communities and long-term partners who they shared a life with and who were denied any crumb of this previous life at their death because there was no legal recognition for same-sex cohabitation and unions and their homophobic family could tear everything from the surviving partner thanks to this lack of recognition and let it slide.

some people out there were truly so eager to shit on the boring assimilationist prude gays who survived aids by being stuck-up prudes and who just wanted "big gay weddings" they made up in their minds to get mad at that they turned their brains off and let it slide. they could've used their smoothed-out brains for ONE minute & found out that surviving took 1) plain boring luck and 2) radical, loud, proud gay activists campaigning for safe/safer sex and the information campaigns they led, as well as the protests and demonstrations they undertook to make the government fucking care for once. and that legally-recognized unions [be they civil or religious] were a matter of survival for the partner left behind. some people out there truly let a business major with a turtleneck (possibly the definition of boring) passing himself off as cool and radical and an intellectual tell them homophobic bullshit. and did not blink. like OF COURSE this guy's gonna be a plagiarist. he needs to get his information from SOMEWHERE. because when he tries to formulate his own stuff it's complete fabrications or the frankensteining of multiple sources that he manages to misunderstand/misrepresent threefold over. trying to fit a knit sock over the foot with the inside out and wonder why that itches.

i know many people in his audience are likely very young and also likely american and as such did most of their growing up in a world where their country (1 out of 195. give or take.) had legalized gay marriage but i cannot even begin to describe 1) how Young legalized gay wedding is, even in ""the west"" and 2) how many. other countries there are. my country legalized same-sex marriage before the US did. i am not even 25 and i still remember the hordes of catholics marching down the streets chanting homophobic slogans, implying the only reason two mommies or two daddies would want to raise a child together is for nefarious, vile purposes. i still remember families having to drag their asses into court to argue that, yes, a woman who raised a child for its whole life with another woman she's in a long-term committed cohabitated relationship with should have the right to be considered a direct guardian even if she's not biologically related to the child, and spending thousands of bucks having to argue their case in court. this might be shocking to some, but there are countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. in others, not by death, but by imprisonment. in others, not by imprisonment, but by ""medical intervention"". in others, not by ""medical intervention" but by fines. and in some others still, you can be gay (yay!) but you still cannot get married or civil-unioned, and the very same shit that was discussed in the 80s is still discussed now. the right to stay a guardian of your partner's child if your partner dies or is ill, so the kid does not go into foster care. the right to inherit your partner's property according to married rights instead of having through long annoying time- and money-consuming legal processes. the right to arrange your partner's funeral or have a say in their medical choices if they're incapacitated instead of their (potentially homophobic) families.

like We Are Not There Yet. we are not in a world where any homosexual can truly, fully, wholeheartedly assimilate, whether you consider it a good thing or not. fun gay artists and boring uninteresting gay office workers die the same death that we all do. the one you don't wake from. and guess what. all types of homosexuals, regardless of which ones you pick and choose to be mad at, are affected by homophobic legislation. not just the ones you think should be spared because they're oh so fun. and oh so radical.

donate to the rainbow railroad org if you can. they help LGBT+ people escape state-sponsored violence. a singular nail on one of their members' hand does more activism and real-life good than any mfer making video essays could do in his entire life.

[my-vanishing-777]

Marianne Bachmeier

Marianne Bachmeier was a West German woman who shot and killed Klaus Grabowski, a man on trial for the rape and murder of her daughter Anna, in an act of vigilantism in the District Court of Lübeck in 1981. The case sparked extensive media coverage and public debate.

[shiikiyun]

I find the woobification of milgram characters and the oversimplification of their crimes to pull a "but theyre all murderers" equally annoying and i think yall would benefit of critical thinking

[duckduck-buck]

I think Maddie is such an interesting character.

Like at the beginning you see her and she’s this teasing, cheerful person who brings something, something new? She’s Buck’s sister who appears suddenly in such a crazy, ridiculous manner that all you can think of is the second embarrassment for the both of them.

And then, she starts to speak and you know that there’s something there, a reason for her to show up, to “pass through” as she says; but you don’t really mind it. She’s new, she’s not one of the OGs, I haven’t seen the first season in ages but I don’t even remember Buck talking about her?? I might be wrong on that. So you move on. You expect her to bring something to the story, that’s how TV works, but you expect it to be something in connection to Buck —which one may argue it was in a certain vague kind of way. But it’s still primarily about her. And she stays. She stays and she becomes a part of this world and you learn about her and god. Maddie is so sad. Maddie is such a sad character because of what she’s been through, because of her fears and the unkind and cruel world she was in before we even met her. And she wants to move on. She is moving on and she is getting stronger but the fears are still here. And she doesn’t let them bring her down and she fights and she meets Chimney and she thinks. Maybe? Maybe that can be my happy ending.

And then Doug happens.

And then the aftermath. And then the inbetweens, and then more traumas, the pregnancy, the Buckley parents and Daniel and Buck and Jee and the PPD and and…

And while all of this happens, she is taking, overcoming, taking, overcoming, taking, repressing. And you look at her and damn, Maddie is just such a sad character? Hate her (you’re not allowed) or Love her, she really is very sad. And yet, she’s so? Inspirational? Because yes, she makes me sad; congrats to JLH for knowing exactly how to pull the strings in my heart; but above all she is so sweet? And yeah she is strong and yeah she happiness doesn’t mean the trauma is gone but I just can’t believe how sweet she is. And it’s like you see her, and you see Buck and yeah they are both absolute sweethearts even tho they have their moments of being little shits you know. And you see their parents and blink twice because where the fuck did they get this sweetness from??? And sure, Maddie raised Bucks so he got it from her but where the hell did she get it from?

But anyways, the important bit is that, well she is sweet, she stays kind and good and yes she’s flawed but who isn’t?? She’s lovely. And she loves. God does she love. She loves and loves. She loves Buck and she loves Jee and she loves Margaret and Philip even though they treated her and her brother unfairly, even though they buried themselves in their grief, to the point where they could only see the child under the dirt, to the point where they couldn’t see the little girl and the little boy looking down at them from the surface, holding hands. She loves and she loves and god does she love Chimney. She loves his shitty jokes and his weird ideas, she loves their gossips and the tender way he looks at her, she loves his smile, his laugh, his perfect shoulder for her to lay on, and she loves his hands and his eyes and his heart. She loves the way that he loves her, and Jee and their family. She loves him in a way she never knew she could love.

Because in spite of it all, the trauma and the pain and the repression and the resentment. There’s one thing the cruel world of before, the impacts of durings and the silence of afters will never take from her and that’s her Love.

And maybe this happy ending she thought of all those years ago wasn’t that. Maybe it was just the beginning of happiness.

Ah but well, at the end of the day she isn’t real.

[sharper-than-a-serpents-tooth]

AU where Ijekiel married Athy in a secret ceremony in the Lovely Princess and Rosalia decided she had to die, because divorce didn't exist back then

[gregor-samsung]

גט - המשפט של ויויאן אמסלם‎ [Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem] (Ronit Elkabetz, Shlomi Elkabetz - 2014)