Greentext

7253 readers

968 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

490

Anon checks up on a childhood friend (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

200 years ago people also had kids quite late.

And we live so much longer than even 40 years ago. Life is so much better and safer now.

[–] PlasticLove@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

200 years ago people were having kids at 15-16

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

And at 40 and 45, since there wasn't birth control.

I was honestly surprised when I looked at a genealogy site, so many of my ancestresses got married at 28-30, I guess reading Little House on the Prairie when I was a kid made me think all those women of old times married young but nope, that did not seem to be the case.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 2 points 2 days ago

But the nuclear family is much younger, so today’s kids rely much more heavily and directly on their parents with respect to kids 200 years ago. The “village” build around multigenerational housing has disappeared, making the age of parents a much bigger factor than earlier on