Why do high schoolers look younger now

12-15-2013, 05:19 PM

13 posts, read 92,119 times

Reputation: 26

I'm in high school now and I've looked at yearbooks of my school from various decades as well as my parents yearbooks and the teenagers looked extremely old. My parents both went to school in the 70s and they certainly didn't look like me at 16. I look at the faces of the teenagers in the yearbooks and they could easily pass for a 40 year old even 50 year old if they look really old (which a lot do). Every other guy had a mustache and a lot even had beards and the girls looked like middle aged women. I know they had different hairstyles and wore different clothes them but they just had faces that didn't look youthful at all. Teenagers now look so much younger than teenagers of any other generation. I noticed that teenagers now are much shorter and look much younger. I'd say a lot of teens now could pass for 10-12 year olds. It's quite strange how teens didn't start looking young until about the mid 90s. Does anyone have a logical explanation for all of this?

12-15-2013, 05:20 PM

Location: southern california

61,281 posts, read 83,332,039 times

Reputation: 55458

they were fit and did adult stuff like work, that will make you look older. also they tried to dress and act like adults, you know, crazy stuff like that.

12-15-2013, 06:55 PM

Location: SE UK

13,016 posts, read 9,980,626 times

Reputation: 8523

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

Your mother will be pleased to hear that you think she looked 40 when she was 16! lol - best not mention that one to her! :-)

12-15-2013, 07:09 PM

7,493 posts, read 11,228,663 times

Reputation: 7394

Maybe it could have something to do with the quality of the photos from those days? Other than that, maybe it was all the 3-2 beer and smoking and drugs or something. But kids still do some of these things now too...

12-15-2013, 07:55 PM

2,949 posts, read 5,265,164 times

Reputation: 1633

Your kids will probably be saying the same thing about you and your generation. I grew up in the 60's snd 70's and when I look st old pictures of my parents and people from the 20's and 30's, I think the same thing about them.

12-15-2013, 08:39 PM

5,238 posts, read 7,583,720 times

Reputation: 11385

I think kids looked less weathered back in the 70's. Look at prom pics or the high school graduating class of various schools these days and you'd think most were middle aged. At least that's what I see in the areas I've lived.

12-15-2013, 08:48 PM

Location: Riverside Ca

22,155 posts, read 29,561,421 times

Reputation: 35334

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

Some of it had to do with the quality of the pics, the print media and the style of clothing and hair. Look at pics of yearbooks from the 50s. And the main reason guys looked older is because things like metrosexual were not around. Guys let their hair grow. We have a kid at work who is 25 and can't grow a beard or mustache to save his life.

12-15-2013, 09:05 PM

Location: California

35,693 posts, read 39,245,999 times

Reputation: 33047

My mom went to HS in 40's and really, she looked 30 when she was 13. Black and white photo, dark lipstick, heavily drawn on eyebrows, hair in a wave....everyone WANTED to look older. It wasn't just something that occurred, it was on purpose.

12-15-2013, 09:51 PM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 26,983,047 times

Reputation: 7436

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osito

Smoking, drugs, and hard liquor

12-15-2013, 09:56 PM

3,853 posts, read 3,817,808 times

Reputation: 9061

Wildcard thought: perhaps their parents had more adult expectations of them thus making them appear older or they were introduced to the workforce at early age in some capacity and had assumed a mantle of responsibility, and all this without having 24/7 digital electronic contact with each other to 'bathe' in white noise?

As another mentioned, it may also be the school studio photography methods of the day.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 2

12-15-2013, 10:22 PM

1,661 posts, read 2,356,278 times

Reputation: 2158

Cigarettes, booze, sex, etc

12-15-2013, 10:24 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 600,980 times

Reputation: 673

I graduated from high school in 1982, and I don't think we looked any older in our yearbook photos than today's teens look in theirs. Then I look at my mom or dad's yearbook and wonder why it's full of old people. You know what the answer is, and why each generation seems to appear "older" as teens to the next generation's teens? It's the hairstyles, the clothing and makeup styles. At least mostly so. When I look at photos of teens from the 1940s and 1950s, I see hairstyles and shapes to glasses and clothing and stuff that I associate with people who were middle-aged adults when I knew them during my own teen years. The human mind superimposes that perception upon the photograph, so even though we may be looking at photos of 16-year-olds, we see them partly through our mind's eye and because we may know 30 to 45-year-olds who still wear those same hairstyles, etc. we perceive the person in the photo as an adult rather than as a teenager. It has nothing to do with adult expectations, maturity, lifestyle or anything else for most people. It's all just a trick of perception. Trust me, my friends and I were every bit as immature at 16 as anyone that age today, and I suspect it may not have been much different for teens in the 1950s. (I won't say quite the same of teens in the 1940s given they were coming of age during or close to the time of WWII which cast a pall of seriousness over everyone, and even saw a number of 16-year-old boys like my uncle quit school to join the military, and then -- if they survived -- come home after the war and perhaps return to high school, already war veterans.)

The stories I could tell you from my high school days would prove we were kids. The only things we lacked that today's teens have would be cellphones, the internet and things like Xbox, etc. for the most part. Sure, we listened to music on cassettes using a Walkman rather than downloading songs to an iPod, and if we wanted to play video games we had to go someplace that had Pac-Man or Tempest or Asteroids or whatever and drop a quarter in a slot, but the other differences really aren't that big.

12-15-2013, 11:26 PM

8,674 posts, read 12,849,591 times

Reputation: 8760

There was a thread similiar to this not to long ago.

Anyway,I was thinking since today's teens are obese,that is what makes them look younger?

12-15-2013, 11:41 PM

157 posts, read 291,531 times

Reputation: 154

Something else to consider:

In recent decades, manufacturers have put things like estrogen in shampoos. Some scientists believe this is making boys look softer and feminine and the reason these young girls have ridiculously pneumatic bodies before they can even drive. I do agree that if you look at kids from the 60s and 70s there is a very different look about them. Just not ready to fully ascribe to the shampoo theory, although it is an interesting one.

12-15-2013, 11:43 PM

Location: Illinois

4,751 posts, read 5,071,908 times

Reputation: 12979

Practically everyone smoked, which ages the skin and makes wrinkles more pronounced. People laid out to tan, nobody used sunscreen. HA! They used baby oil! And for women, the skincare products were completely different. People used vaseline as moisturizer. All terrible for the skin.

12-16-2013, 01:25 AM

13,507 posts, read 16,918,877 times

Reputation: 37885

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

Exactly the same question was posed in the past about kids in 1950's yearbooks. Don't know if it was in the history thread.

12-16-2013, 01:31 AM

13,507 posts, read 16,918,877 times

Reputation: 37885

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceece

Rather the same in the Fifties. The goal was to be a "Grown Up" (but not all fussy-fart like your parents, of course.) I can remember reaching university in fall of 1956 and discovering that anything whatsoever that smacked of high school was scorned, because the drive was on full bore at this point to be grown up.

12-16-2013, 02:28 AM

1,627 posts, read 3,039,365 times

Reputation: 2063

Style of hair, clothing and pictures were in black/white.

12-16-2013, 03:32 AM

8,674 posts, read 12,849,591 times

Reputation: 8760

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Patrizio

Something else to consider:

You are saying the opposite of what the OP is saying.

Still,I say its obesity that makes the kids look younger,and what you describe as pneumatic bodies

12-16-2013, 07:30 AM

2,972 posts, read 3,059,910 times

Reputation: 4231

Funny I was thinking the same thing as the OP, and I was teen in the 70s. I think part of it is a trick of perception. I'll see a 16 yr old now and think, jeez he looks like a baby compared to my old pals Roger or Gary or whomever. I think Roger and Gary shaved once a year though, and maybe got a haircut every 5 years. They were the tall, muscular guys. Then there was Mark , a short skinny guy with braces and glasses who looked about 12. Looking as young as possible was not the ideal for girls back then We wanted to look older. Also it's the photos as well.

There were other guys back then who looked years younger than Roger and Gary, and girls who looked years younger than Ellen, Lauren and some of my other class mates.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 3

12-16-2013, 08:13 AM

3,441 posts, read 4,558,504 times

Reputation: 1736

1. Methods of photography changed mid 90ies, that was when digital cameras would have been in use and color photography of the whole year book more common. Yearbooks used black and white film (expect for perhaps the senior class) to save money and sometimes the film was a bit grainy.

2. People age at different rates. In High school I knew a girl who had wrinkles and I wouldn’t have been able to grow a beard till college. I have known guys who needed to shave since 8th grade.

3. People dress up for school photos which can make you look a bit older.

4. Teenagers if anything are perhaps a bit taller than when I was in High School in the late 80ies and in actual fact a tad older in some instances due to changes in laws regarding what age children start school in some states in the 90ies.

12-16-2013, 09:00 AM

2,382 posts, read 5,143,590 times

Reputation: 3460

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBeam33

I wasn't a smoker , but "laying out" with baby oil was pretty common among my friends. Acne treatment focused on "drying out" pimples. Hairstyles were very stiff, lots of hairspray. My friends and I all worn really dark, or black eyeliner on the inner lids (both upper and lower) regardless of natural coloring. The eyeliner made eyes look smaller and very harsh. Also - there was a big thing about comtuouring your face with make-up, esp blush.

12-16-2013, 09:28 AM

Location: Oceania

8,610 posts, read 7,371,829 times

Reputation: 8318

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinpretty

Style of hair, clothing and pictures were in black/white.

My entire 1976 yearbook is in B&W. There is not a color picture inside.

It kind of explains why it might look old. The photos are all a bit grainy as well.We all had long hair, big afros, and all wore the same jacket/gown in every photo. They did it at the school in a classroom rather than at a studio.

12-16-2013, 09:35 AM

Location: Tucson for awhile longer

8,873 posts, read 15,483,013 times

Reputation: 29185

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

... When I look at photos of teens from the 1940s and 1950s, I see hairstyles and shapes to glasses and clothing and stuff that I associate with people who were middle-aged adults when I knew them during my own teen years. The human mind superimposes that perception upon the photograph, so even though we may be looking at photos of 16-year-olds, we see them partly through our mind's eye and because we may know 30 to 45-year-olds who still wear those same hairstyles, etc. we perceive the person in the photo as an adult rather than as a teenager ...

^^^That mostly. Also, I think even people in high school in the 60s and 70s were trying to act older. I had my first non-babysitting job when I was 14. I certainly didn't want anyone to know I was 14. And as a result, I was constantly hanging around with people who were a lot older than I was. Of the 14-year-olds I know today, they rarely speak to adults outside of their parents and teachers, let alone work with them. They want to dress like them, though.

12-16-2013, 10:34 AM

Location: The Jar

20,058 posts, read 17,152,966 times

Reputation: 37061

Kids nowadays are much heavier! Those extra pounds hide any and many of the signs of age/lines/stress.

Oh, and most of us had to work extra jobs during and after school. Our parents pretty much expected it. We weren't given everything--like too many are today.

Of course, despite all of my hard work, stress, etc.,etc... this pickle has remained well-preserved for my advanced age.

12-16-2013, 10:37 AM

Location: Texas

44,253 posts, read 60,785,668 times

Reputation: 73780

Our food supply wasn't contaminated with estrogens, baby face.

12-16-2013, 10:48 AM

Location: near bears but at least no snakes

25,728 posts, read 25,648,644 times

Reputation: 47722

Teenagers wanted to look older. There weren't that many advantages to being a teenager as they were not catered to the way they are today. They were not babied and pampered. People wanted to look old enough to get a job or to get into a good college. (Some girls wanted to look old enough to date the teacher.)

__________________
my posts as moderator will be in red. Moderator: Health&Wellness~Genealogy. The Rules--read here>>> TOS. If someone attacks you, do not reply. Hit REPORT.

12-16-2013, 11:24 AM

1,161 posts, read 2,287,388 times

Reputation: 2598

I graduated from HS in the mid-1960s, before the hippie revolution took off. We would have not been allowed to be featured in the school yearbooks in anything other than neatly ironed, clean clothes. "Casual" wear did not mean gym and/or athletic gear. While we certainly wore jeans and worn but comfortable shirts outside school, our mothers always made sure they were clean, and I'll repeat this again, we would have never been allowed to wear them for school photographs.

We did look older than today's generation in the school yearbooks or even casual photographs because we were dressing more like the adults of the time. In the early - mid 1960s when you were 17 or 18 the concept that you were about to enter adulthood was real and college was serious business, not play time or postponing childhood for a few more years. So you wanted to look "grown up." People dressed neatly when they went to school or work or shopping because they wanted to look "respectable," as that was part of the code of being a responsible, hard working adult. There was a commonly held understanding for when it was acceptable to wear certain kinds of clothes and when it wasn't and this understanding was so ingrained into our sensibilities that it didn't sound silly to us as it might to an 18 year old student today.

12-16-2013, 11:27 AM

Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana

4,410 posts, read 5,989,055 times

Reputation: 6234

Really it's just due to fashion styles and photo quality.

12-16-2013, 11:32 AM

Location: LA, CA/ In This Time and Place

5,446 posts, read 4,343,918 times

Reputation: 5097

I am in my 20's now, and it seems people generally look younger than people in the past, in most age groups. Take twenty somethings, more likely they look younger than twenty somethings in the past. Fifty years look younger too, whereas 50 yrs olds generations ago looked like old people. People in their early 60s now look like they are in their middle 50's.

Of course there are exceptions, but people tend to look younger nowadays, especially from ages 20-50. Teens strike me as looking neither younger or older, though younger than teens from decades past for sure. But I think it is a stretch to say they could pass for 10 years old, some could pass for 21.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 4

12-16-2013, 11:40 AM

7,695 posts, read 9,833,357 times

Reputation: 15254

Look at 30-50's starlets also. Not one of them would be considered attractive nowadays (except out of politeness).

60's Chicks do quite well though.

12-16-2013, 12:28 PM

2,949 posts, read 5,271,227 times

Reputation: 1633

I think it's funny that people would say...because we had jobs that made us look older. How would having a job in your teen years make you look older at 16, 17, or 18? I could see if you did hard labor out in the elements for 30 or 40 years, how that could wear on you over time. But not as a young kid. I just agree with what someone else posted about how it is basically our perception and perhaps hairstyle and photo quality.

But I think even young actresses and models from the 60's and 70's look older than young girls today. And I agree with the above poster who said actresses from the 60s and 70s were very attractive. As a matter of fact, I think actresses and models back in the 60 's & 70 's were much hotter than most of the actresses today. Actually, I think women in general were hotter back then. Maybe it was the dress or hairstyles. They just seemed more bouncy and curvy if you know what I mean. And I don't just mean boobs. I mean their bodies in general seemed more soft and curvy.

12-16-2013, 12:35 PM

Location: The Great West

2,077 posts, read 2,445,148 times

Reputation: 4107

I see a lot of people saw this post and took the opportunity to bash my generation. Stay classy, guys. I think they looked older because of what a lot of posters have already said - hair, clothes, makeup, quality of photos and the smoking/partying. I am sure that if you time-traveled back to the '70s and saw these people in real life, they would look younger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ciceropolo

Wow, could you be more bitter?

12-16-2013, 12:36 PM

26,667 posts, read 16,082,618 times

Reputation: 28858

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

I would disagree. Teenagers today look far less youthful to me than the pictures in my high school yearbook. I suspect, though, that the difference is merely a matter of where you are in life. An anecdote: My 7th grade English teacher was one of my favorites, and we got along very well. I remember her, though, as a rather mousy, indescript woman in appearance, and I'd have called her "middle aged." When I was at the end of my senior year--in those last days of the year when all the work was done and our school time was essentially free --I decided to run over to my old junior high school and pay that teacher a visit.

The office aid showed me to her room. I looked through the door...and saw this absolute freaking young babe sitting at the desk. She looked out and saw me, and I saw the look of recognition in her eyes. But I honestly did not recognize her at all.

It turns out that the year of my 7th grade was her first year of teaching out of college. To this day, I don't really know if her appearance changed or my perception of women changed as I grew older.

12-16-2013, 12:59 PM

13,507 posts, read 16,956,283 times

Reputation: 37885

Quote:

Originally Posted by in_newengland

In my state the drinking age was 18, when in the other states and provinces around us it was twenty-one. So we strived to look older if we wanted to be served in bars.

12-16-2013, 01:13 PM

13 posts, read 92,483 times

Reputation: 26

I think a lot of you people fail to realize that the same thing goes on now. Kids still drink, smoke, and do drugs. Maybe they don't do it as much but it is still prevalent. As for having jobs, teenagers still have jobs today and my mom was a waitress when she was in HS and my dad worked as a short order cook (both in the 70s) and I just asked them about jobs at the time and most of the people in our large suburban community worked in at stores, restaurants, fast food, or the movie theater which is pretty much the same now. Weight and technology also factor into today as many of you said and I know that.

12-16-2013, 02:08 PM

Location: Bel Air, California

23,784 posts, read 26,946,212 times

Reputation: 37301

kids like us back then were not very smart and frequently held back a year here and there, most of us by the time we were ready to graduate were in our 20's and raising families.

12-16-2013, 02:33 PM

Location: Arizona

7,348 posts, read 7,287,767 times

Reputation: 23955

It may be because we had traditional portraits taken. No ones graduation picture was taken next to a tree or waterfall. I only had 1 color graduation picture all of the others were black and white. All the same pose.

12-16-2013, 03:26 PM

Location: Philaburbia

39,316 posts, read 69,839,241 times

Reputation: 63512

Hairstyles and fashion, and the different perceptions of those things. You see the hairstyles and clothing as "old", and that translates to your perception of the person wearing the clothing and hairstyle.

I look at the same pictures and see people wearing the same hairstyles and clothing that I wore in 1970-whenever. The people in those pictures don't look old to me at all; they look familiar.

12-16-2013, 04:07 PM

Location: SLC, UT

1,571 posts, read 2,661,850 times

Reputation: 3912

Dark lipstick can really age a person. Just look at Lorde - she's 16 and she looks like she's 30.

Also, the sepia tones of old photographs can age a person, along with the style. If you see a style that you associate as being really "old," then the person will look older because they're wearing that style.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 5

12-16-2013, 04:55 PM

50 posts, read 89,334 times

Reputation: 92

Make up, hair styles, clothing styles, photography of the age, the EXCESSIVE smoking/second hand smoke (pretty much no escape), excess sun exposer (no one wore sun screen ever), desire to look older, the somber expressions...

12-16-2013, 04:56 PM

50 posts, read 89,334 times

Reputation: 92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

I look at the same pictures and see people wearing the same hairstyles and clothing that I wore in 1970-whenever. The people in those pictures don't look old to me at all; they look familiar.

This is a good point .. if faces were isolated, photo quality was cleaned up/brightened, then you probably wouldn't be able to choose a "50s" woman from a "modern" woman ... provided everyone was smiling (rare then in portraits)

12-16-2013, 05:06 PM

Location: Pacific NW

6,413 posts, read 11,520,070 times

Reputation: 5848

Hair and dress styles. And because some people never change their style, those styles are now associated with "old" people.

They, themselves, didn't look any younger or older than kids do today.

12-16-2013, 06:33 PM

Location: Oceania

8,610 posts, read 7,351,600 times

Reputation: 8318

Kids were healthier 40 years ago than they are now. Factor that into age appearance.

12-16-2013, 06:54 PM

Location: State of Transition

96,632 posts, read 94,459,730 times

Reputation: 106906

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

It REALLY depends on the individuals! Back in the 70's, it was an extension of the 60's, so for men it was cool to have long hair and beards or other facial hair. Looking at some of the women in the 70's, though, like on youtube vids of the music groups back then, some of them looked like 15-year-olds even in their 20's. So I think it really depends on the person. It may also depend on geographic region, and local styles.

You should go back to the 50's yearbooks. Back then teens and college students deliberately tried to look like adults. They tried to look like their parents. It was weird.

12-16-2013, 07:04 PM

26,560 posts, read 16,002,227 times

Reputation: 28773

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

You should go back to the 50's yearbooks. Back then teens and college students deliberately tried to look like adults. They tried to look like their parents. It was weird.

What ought to seem weird is college students not trying to look like (or act like) adults.

12-16-2013, 07:05 PM

7,412 posts, read 5,846,296 times

Reputation: 6651

They were skinnier. Obese teenagers nowadays have moon-faces.

12-16-2013, 09:03 PM

Location: Oviedo

452 posts, read 671,029 times

Reputation: 936

You have to remember that those boys in the yearbooks were packing their things to go off to Vietnam. I'm a "child" of that era and we were expected to grow up, and to dress accordingly. As we got older we were dressed appropriately for our ages. At 18, women (yes, women) were usually married or about to be and boys quit being boys at 16.

For the most part, everyone was extremely conservative by today's standards and conformed to an expected lifestyle. There was a drive for responsibility, as it "proved" to the older people around us that we weren't children any more. Boys got man hairstyles at 14.

12-16-2013, 09:21 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 600,980 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBeam33

Practically everyone smoked, which ages the skin and makes wrinkles more pronounced.

Except that most of us did not smoke.

Quote:

People laid out to tan, nobody used sunscreen.

Except that most of us did use suscreen... when we tried to tan at all....

Quote:

And for women, the skincare products were completely different. People used vaseline as moisturizer. All terrible for the skin.

Except that you wouldn't have caught a teenaged girl using Vaseline as a moisturizer, if she even used moisturizer at all. Adult women didn't use it as a facial moisturizer either. Vaseline was used in the 70s and 80s for the same things it is used for today: To prevent diaper rash in infants, and to moisturize extremely chapped lips and hands, and to soothe dry cracked heels. The makeup and skin preparations I used in 1980 weren't much different from what's available today. In fact, many of the same products are still on the market and being used by today's teens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeannaC

Wait, what??? The Vietnam war was over by the mid-70s. And in most parts of the country, girls were NOT getting married at 18 as a general rule. Most young women waited for that, except in parts of the deep South or of Appalachia.

Quote:

The 1970s, conservative?????? Hello! This was the age of disco, the ongoing sexual revolution, hard rock music and some pretty major drug use. It was hardly a conservative era.

I was there, and I remember it. I didn't enter my teens until 1977, but I was culturally aware for several years before that.

12-16-2013, 10:30 PM

Location: Silicon Valley, CA

13,569 posts, read 9,356,954 times

Reputation: 8234

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

I look at the same pictures and see people wearing the same hairstyles and clothing that I wore in 1970-whenever. The people in those pictures don't look old to me at all; they look familiar.

I think that's true. As for actually aging - heck, I was a teen in the late 1970s-early 1980s and I looked a lot younger than my actual age, couldn't grow any facial hair until I was well into college. Fortunately looking younger helps me in my appearance in middle age now!
.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 6

12-17-2013, 07:59 AM

Location: Arizona

2,307 posts, read 1,875,729 times

Reputation: 3420

I graduated high school in 1978. I'd say we all looked normal for our ages except the clothes were a lot cheesier.

12-17-2013, 08:10 AM

26,700 posts, read 16,114,725 times

Reputation: 28875

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slater

I graduated high school in 1978. I'd say we all looked normal for our ages except the clothes were a lot cheesier.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

12-17-2013, 08:24 AM

Location: Arizona

2,307 posts, read 1,875,729 times

Reputation: 3420

As to the 1970's being more conservative than today, I would certainly agree. Obviously there was the era of "free love", drugs and all that. By and large, gays were still firmly in the closet and to mention gay marriage would have brought you some strange looks. Abortion was, at the time, a controversial topic. There was an episode of the old sitcom "Maude" (with Bea Arthur) in which Maude gets an abortion. Before the show was televised, a disclaimer came on the screen advising people that the topic was abortion and they might want to refrain from watching it. Gun control was way back on the national agenda, and you could buy an AR-15 assault rifle at Montgomery Ward. Of course, mass shootings simply weren't a known phenomenon back then and certainly not at schools. I'm not sure how or why that changed over the years, Back then, some of today's issues weren't even, well, issues. Islamic terrorism, the illegal immigration debate, global warming (Hell, they though another Ice Age was on the way), AIDS, crack cocaine and meth, Afghanistan/Iraq (although we'd just left Vietnam), and others. Political correctness had yet to make an appearance, at least in any meaningful way.

I tell ya, nothing's been the same since David Lee Roth left Van Halen

12-17-2013, 08:29 AM

Location: Okinawa, Japan

265 posts, read 664,976 times

Reputation: 376

If you think they look old in the '80s try looking at yearbooks from the '50s and before. With responsibilities people get mature in mind, which back in those days meant you looked more formal--at least by today's standards.

12-17-2013, 09:35 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,264 times

Reputation: 673

Except everybody DIDN'T smoke. Some people did and some didn't -- just like today.

12-17-2013, 09:38 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,264 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverkris

I'm half-tempted to post the photo from my high school graduation party, held just before my 18th birthday. I look about 13 in it. This was in 1982.

12-17-2013, 10:49 AM

Location: Georgia

4,573 posts, read 5,192,251 times

Reputation: 15903

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

Many times, members of a generation never see a reason to update their makeup or hairstyle, so your mom MAY actually look the same now as she did in her yearbook -- therefore, she looks old in the yearbook! Same with other generations -- it looked good when they were 17, so if they keep doing the same thing, maybe they'll keep looking 17 . . .

12-17-2013, 02:23 PM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,047,458 times

Reputation: 7439

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

Except everybody DIDN'T smoke. Some people did and some didn't -- just like today.

Percentage of nonsmokers then = percentage of smokers now.

12-17-2013, 02:43 PM

Location: "Chicago"

1,866 posts, read 2,708,992 times

Reputation: 869

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slater

I graduated high school in 1978. I'd say we all looked normal for our ages except the clothes were a lot cheesier.

I remember what I wore in 1978 (I'm a little younger). Imagine all the poor polyesters who died to make those clothes!

12-17-2013, 02:46 PM

26,700 posts, read 16,114,725 times

Reputation: 28875

Quote:

Originally Posted by css9450

I remember what I wore in 1978 (I'm a little younger). Imagine all the poor polyesters who died to make those clothes!

They're still dying, except we're using microfiber polyesters now, an unprotected species.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by savoytruffle

Wow, could you be more bitter?

None whatsoever, since this is the History forum I chose to emphasize something I've noticed as being a key quality of generational difference that may play into appearance, albeit, subtly.

Note, I am interpreting this question outside the boundaries of simply a two dimensional photo based appearance and interpreting it also as, how young adults of comparable age would have comported themselves, and behaved in adult company as well as fashion/dress. (And yes, I 'm certain this has been said consistently by older generations of younger generations

Here's a few anecdotal things I can give as examples, to address the context of my comment.

In family type gatherings, the young were made to spend a limited amount of time all together with the elders and rest of family - before running off to play / entertain ourselves. This may have been primarily cultural values, but, even when over friends and sharing stories or mixed gatherings, it was pretty standard m.o. Now, I see youth totally distracted and disjointed socially from human interaction and frequently off in separate room or another world along with whatever digital toy / device. I surmise if many of us had the same level of objects with which to lose ourselves from events we found boring, we likely would have 'checked out' also. But I wanted to enunciate a difference I observe.

An interesting corollary study others may find interesting is the recent Kent State University campus study on students and mobile device usage - but I digress.

In my youth, 70s and early 80s I grew up in a working middle class area where the concept of someone getting an allowance was usually thought of as ridiculous if it didn't entail a list of responsibilities around the house (and even then, most of my friends in the neighborhood did not receive any allowance). If you wanted something as older child / young adult, we were encouraged to get jobs or pick up work helping in the neighborhood to earn money. Newspaper routes, shoveling snow, lawn care, pet care, grocery shopping errands for the old lady on the street, etc... you name it.

It doesn't mean we all automatically became entrepreneurs and business people, but rather that, very few kids expected or felt entitled to things since the parents generally held their ground and were parents and not trying to be our best friend - or live their lives through us. Those parents mostly came from a generation where being your child's friend was significantly less important than raising a responsible human being (and not another possession) and contributing member of society (whether we did or not

Now by no means, do I think this doesn't still happen today, I just think it happens far less and the youth are poorer (in social skills / graces) and seemingly younger for it (socially / emotionally). Not that we were any model of mature adults in our day, but there was a healthy does of respect and early understanding of what it meant to be respectful and civil. As in, if Uncle George, or the old lady down the street was a little batty, you still acknowledged them and paid attention (for a while at least

So, what I'm getting to is that in historical environmental context, the young adult, beyond the styles of fashion and photography technique, may look just as young facially, but that there could be more going on to reflect a countenance and demeanor of being (socially/ emotionally) 'older'.

I apologize if the initial comment came off as a unilateral slam of younger generation as you have a lot more distractions in total and more going on to deal with in the ever quickening 'pace' of society.

Page 8

None whatsoever, since this is the History forum I chose to emphasize something I've noticed as being a key quality of generational difference that may play into appearance, albeit, subtly.

Here's a few anecdotal things I can give as examples, to address the context of my comment.

An interesting corollary study others may find interesting is the recent Kent State University campus study on students and mobile device usage - but I digress.

Page 9

12-18-2013, 06:55 PM

119 posts, read 285,127 times

Reputation: 193

My mother's classmates looked their ages in the 80s. Mine looked theirs in the 2000s but tell me why most of my old schoolmates at 27 look 50? Very haggard. Some of the girls have several wrinkles on their foreheads already and the guys are either fat or look like they've done outside manual labor for 30 years. Life must be rough for a lot of people or maybe it's drugs and alcohol.

12-18-2013, 07:21 PM

1,108 posts, read 2,151,605 times

Reputation: 688

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

Shut up! You're the one who looks old!

12-18-2013, 08:42 PM

Location: Kennedy Heights, Ohio. USA

3,216 posts, read 2,493,426 times

Reputation: 2144

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

I can't figure out why Boomer school officials are so totally uncool. How could we have been so cool as students and become so uncool as principals and teachers?

Just my opinion I think that the Boomers in charge now as they grow older think the era of the 1950's and 60's where rigidity and conformity were held in high esteem were the good old days. They probably think that the counter cultural movement of the 60's was a great American tragedy and anything that remind them of that in today teens is something they frown upon.

12-18-2013, 09:30 PM

26,549 posts, read 15,993,665 times

Reputation: 28762

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coseau

The Boomers were the counter-culture of the 60s. The high school principals of today were the hippy long-haired, bell-bottomed, weed-smoking revolutionaries of the 60s and early 70s.

12-18-2013, 10:05 PM

13 posts, read 92,119 times

Reputation: 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

The Boomers were the counter-culture of the 60s. The high school principals of today were the hippy long-haired, bell-bottomed, weed-smoking revolutionaries of the 60s and early 70s.

I actually think a lot of the older teachers are cool. Some are strict and mean but most aren't. I actually find teachers in their 30s to be the most uptight and always in a bad mood and they grew up in the 90s which is pretty recent so I don't understand how most of them act 80 when teachers in their 40s and up do not.

12-19-2013, 01:35 PM

Location: Østenfor sol og vestenfor måne

17,932 posts, read 22,325,225 times

Reputation: 38832

My question is, why do college kids today look and act like 14 year olds?

12-19-2013, 01:52 PM

17,292 posts, read 13,579,146 times

Reputation: 14492

Perhaps clothing and fashion goes with the generation, not the age. Since they wore clothes typical of their generation, your generation sees that as an 'older' look simply because, in your time, that is an 'older' generation. Plausible?

12-19-2013, 01:53 PM

1,027 posts, read 1,898,341 times

Reputation: 283

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

I think you misinterpreting how people carry one self with age. Teens back than not into punk ,youth and casual look.The hairstyles was different. Back than it was more formal.

I know 26 year old girl that walked in to buy booze and the clerk thought she was 16 years old .It was because she was dress sorta of punk and grunge combo.

12-19-2013, 02:02 PM

26,549 posts, read 15,993,665 times

Reputation: 28762

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABQConvict

My question is, why do college kids today look and act like 14 year olds?

For that matter, why do 40-year-old men dress exactly like 14-year-olds?

12-20-2013, 01:40 PM

Location: Eugene, Oregon

1,201 posts, read 1,148,114 times

Reputation: 998

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

For that matter, why do 40-year-old men dress exactly like 14-year-olds?

I think this may be at least partly explained by the rise of population in the Sun Belt, with SoCal and its influence on popular culture at the forefront. I've noticed how in movies or TV shows where the male characters wear traditional business attire, they keep important items in their inside jacket pockets--for instance travel documents, wallets, and in later years, mobile phones. On Frasier, for example, you'd often see either one of the brothers reach into this pocket when their phones rang.

But if you live in a climate where, pretty much, you put the jacket on only for job interviews and formal photographs that doesn't work too well. It's too easy to lose things if you carry the jacket over your arm, and your cell phone isn't much use if it's in your jacket which you left hanging on the back of a chair in another room. That inner pocket is essentially useless. So I think a lot of men continue to gravitate towards jeans and cargo-type pants, especially in their off hours. I think more recently produced shows have probably tended to exhibit this trend.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 10

12-20-2013, 02:24 PM

26,700 posts, read 16,114,725 times

Reputation: 28875

Quote:

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

No, I mean 40-year-old men dressed like 14-year-old boys...not casual menswear: Unlaced basketball shoes, cut off pants, oversized tee shirt, baseball cap on backwards.

12-23-2013, 09:57 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,264 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coseau

Obviously you forgot that some Boomers were born during the first half of the Sixties. Our attitude tends not to be much different from that of many GenX people. I can actually say the same of quite a few who were born in the Fifties as well.

The Fifties and Sixties were not "good old days".

12-23-2013, 10:16 AM

2,094 posts, read 3,462,416 times

Reputation: 2285

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

The drinking age was 18 so it was easy to buy beer or go to a bar lots of places didn't even check if you "looked 18"
Also lots of 70s teens might have been stoned in their yearbook pics.People were not as obsessed with their looks back then.

12-23-2013, 10:41 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,264 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8635angelvalley

1. The drinking age was only that low in some states. In others it was 19, 20 or 21. Also, bar owners and other sellers of alcohol certainly did check ID.

2. Teens (and adults) were every bit as obsessed with their appearance in the 70s and 80s as they are today.

12-23-2013, 10:42 AM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,047,458 times

Reputation: 7439

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

The Fifties and Sixties were not "good old days".

The last boomers were born in 1960. The boom ended in 1958.

12-23-2013, 11:00 AM

26,700 posts, read 16,114,725 times

Reputation: 28875

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

The Fifties and Sixties were not "good old days".

Even those who were teens in the late 50s were "rebels." The early "James Dean/Marlon Brando (parody: Fonzi" rebels blend into the 60s counter-culture.

12-23-2013, 11:18 AM

2,094 posts, read 3,462,416 times

Reputation: 2285

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

1. The drinking age was only that low in some states. In others it was 19, 20 or 21. Also, bar owners and other sellers of alcohol certainly did check ID.

2. Teens (and adults) were every bit as obsessed with their appearance in the 70s and 80s as they are today.

Obviously we had different experiences. I bought beer and wine when I was under 18 many times. Went to many bars under 21 and never got carded until I was about 30.

In the 80s I willl agree that people were into nice clothing and designer stuff,cosmetic dentristy,nose jobs,boob jobs etc . In the 70s not so much unless you were into disco-we were not.

12-23-2013, 11:30 AM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,047,458 times

Reputation: 7439

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

1. The drinking age was only that low in some states. In others it was 19, 20 or 21. Also, bar owners and other sellers of alcohol certainly did check ID.

2. Teens (and adults) were every bit as obsessed with their appearance in the 70s and 80s as they are today.

Checking ID was far, far less common then than now.

12-23-2013, 11:40 AM

Location: Miami, FL

8,088 posts, read 9,165,844 times

Reputation: 6650

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

The last boomers were born in 1960. The boom ended in 1958.

I believe 1964 is the last year for Baby Boomers.

12-23-2013, 11:42 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,264 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix C

I believe 1964 is the last year for Baby Boomers.

Yep. According to the US Census Bureau, the Baby Boom ran through the end of 1964. I was born in that year.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 11

12-23-2013, 11:43 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

Checking ID was far, far less common then than now.

Not where I lived.

12-23-2013, 12:56 PM

26,750 posts, read 16,184,520 times

Reputation: 29037

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

Yep. According to the US Census Bureau, the Baby Boom ran through the end of 1964. I was born in that year.

Not sure when, how, or why history got revised on that issue. The Baby Boom was originally defined as the huge spike that occurred in the US right after WWII. There was a smaller spike after the Korean War that was called a Baby "Boomlet."

Birth rates had noticeably dropped by the late 50s (which is why the two independent peaks following WWII and the Korean War were still being identified as the "boom" and "boomlet" as late at least as the 1980s), but I suspect that overall births continued at a higher rate compared to the Depression and War years, then dropped considerably when oral contraceptives (introduced in the late 50s) caught on by 1964.

It's important to identify the sociological causes of the events, though: The two booms as well as the drop in the 60s caused by a "disruptive technology," not by normal economic factors.

12-23-2013, 01:35 PM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,079,111 times

Reputation: 7440

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix C

I believe 1964 is the last year for Baby Boomers.

1960.

Strauss

The boom in Western Europe lasted longer, though ; I suspect '64 might be a Euro definition.

12-23-2013, 01:38 PM

Location: On the Chesapeake

41,136 posts, read 53,490,791 times

Reputation: 55211

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

If you're looking in yearbooks one of the reasons may be that the companies didn't touch up the Senior pictures to remove acne, pimples, braces, etc.

Another reason they look old is that the hair styles and clothing are now out of fashion, as others have mentioned.

12-23-2013, 02:02 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

1960.

Strauss

The boom in Western Europe lasted longer, though ; I suspect '64 might be a Euro definition.

Different demographers set different endpoints. I use what the US Census Bureau uses, which is 1964. Some of Europe uses 1960 or 1961, I think. But I'm an American, born in the US.

12-23-2013, 02:14 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

It's important to identify the sociological causes of the events, though: The two booms as well as

the drop in the 60s caused by a "disruptive technology," not by normal economic factors.

I suspect it may be due in part to the fact of this being a reference to a generation rather than to only a subset of one. A generation is usually considered to encompass 18 to 20 years of births, so the generation beginning with those born just after WWII would finish with those born in the first half of the 1960s.

12-23-2013, 02:16 PM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,079,111 times

Reputation: 7440

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

Different demographers set different endpoints. I use what the US Census Bureau uses, which is 1964. Some of Europe uses 1960 or 1961, I think. But I'm an American, born in the US.

The European Baby Boom extended into the '70s. It lasted longer than America's.

The '64 definition makes me a Boomer, which I don't identify with. You'll rarely find anyone born in the '60s who considers themselves to be a Boomer. There are some people born in the late '50s who shun the term, although I'd consider them boomers.

12-23-2013, 02:23 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Some of us do, and some of us don't. In many ways I have far more in common with Boomers than with Gen X, especially considering the birth years of my parents (1929 and 1930) and how their backgrounds affected mine.

I identify as a "late-cohort Boomer" because I think we do fall into two subsets dividing around 1955ish.

12-23-2013, 02:26 PM

26,750 posts, read 16,184,520 times

Reputation: 29037

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

But if the epoch is set at a culturally significant event and the generation is discussed in terms of the social significance of that event, then it's more useful to end the generation when the social significance of that event ends--or another begins--rather that setting the end by a blind rule.

12-23-2013, 02:38 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Then the question becomes, "What event, and what effect?" (Along, perhaps, with "On what scale?") To my knowledge there is no defined and commonly-accepted designation for people born between the Korean conflict and 1965; the Baby Boom segues directly to Generation X. I was born in 1964 to parents who were certainly old enough to be the parents of undisputed Boomers... so for me it's a comfortable label.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 12

12-23-2013, 03:15 PM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,001,190 times

Reputation: 7437

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

Those Boomers born in the late '50s who deny being Boomers bring up the decline in the birth rate from 1958 on and the end of the draft as disqualifying them from Boomer status. There's also a test of sorts - anyone who can't remember Kennedy's assassination isn't a Boomer. (Is there a similar test with 9/11 and Millenials?)

I wonder how it is for Euro Boomers.

12-23-2013, 03:19 PM

Location: Miami, FL

8,088 posts, read 9,140,439 times

Reputation: 6650

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

1960.

Strauss

The boom in Western Europe lasted longer, though ; I suspect '64 might be a Euro definition.

I was actually being polite in my post but really...1964 designated as the boomer cutoff year for 20+ years now. Perhaps more. Pathetic what the Internet has done to make common knowledge disputed and unread folk experts.

12-23-2013, 03:27 PM

26,591 posts, read 16,024,641 times

Reputation: 28800

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoun

Those Boomers born in the late '50s who deny being Boomers bring up the decline in the birth rate from 1958 on and the end of the draft as disqualifying them from Boomer status.

There's also a test of sorts - anyone who can't remember Kennedy's assassination isn't a Boomer.

I'd go along with that. I'd also say that anyone who too young to have an opinion of the Korean War while it was ongoing but old enough to have an opinion of the Vietnam war while that war was ongoing is a Boomer.

Quote:

Is there a similar test with 9/11 and Millenials?)

A Millennial is anyone who can't remember a time before the World Wide Web.

12-23-2013, 03:29 PM

Location: On the Chesapeake

40,958 posts, read 53,157,525 times

Reputation: 54832

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

A Millennial is anyone who can't remember a time before the World Wide Web.

Or who think they're the only generation to suffer unemployment and a multi-year recession.

They also invented pre-marital sex.

12-23-2013, 04:29 PM

26,591 posts, read 16,024,641 times

Reputation: 28800

Quote:

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Or who think they're the only generation to suffer unemployment and a multi-year recession.

They also invented pre-marital sex.

Not useful.

Being raised as a small child with the World Wide Web is a socially significant epoch.

12-23-2013, 04:42 PM

Location: On the Chesapeake

40,958 posts, read 53,157,525 times

Reputation: 54832

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Not useful.

Being raised as a small child with the World Wide Web is a socially significant epoch.

I was adding to your postulate.

12-23-2013, 05:24 PM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 601,304 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

A Millennial is anyone who can't remember a time before the World Wide Web.

I was born long after the Korean War and roughly nine months after JFK was killed, but I definitely had an opinion about the war in Vietnam while it was still happening, as I was already in the double-digit age bracket when it ended. Hard to avoid current events discussion in my family, and we had our share of military veterans including my dad.

Guess I pass the test after all, or well enough for most demographers.

Baby boomers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Kineticity; 12-23-2013 at 05:33 PM..

12-23-2013, 07:44 PM

1,410 posts, read 2,042,920 times

Reputation: 1168

Quote:

Originally Posted by useername

It could be your perception changing as you get older yourself. I remember when I was in elementary school and the middle school students seemed like young adults in my eyes. Once I began high school, the middle school students after me seemed kinda babyfaced. Maybe in the 70s, more teens smoked, and that can age people. Smoking isn't as acceptable today for teens or adults, it's out of style compared to back then. Maybe more of them were on recreational drugs in the 70s compared to now, and that can be aging. Facial hair will make boys look older for sure. For girls back then, center parts, no bangs, thinly tweezed eyebrows were in, maybe perms too, which aren't all that youthful. I was a teen in the 80s. The hairstyles for girls that were in at the time were short. The clothes were boxy and androgynous. That adds up to "frumpy". I get kind of sad if I go back and watch some old teen movie from the 80s, because I felt like our youth was wasted dressing like a middle-aged housewife before our time. Can't say much for the boys.

After the 90s, teen girls' clothing styles got sexier, much to their parents' disappointment, I imagine. Lower rise jeans with thong panty peeking out, skinny jeans, "juicy" printed on the backside of sweatpants, short skirts etc. Also, more teens now use the Manic Panic haircolors. Nothing middle-aged about that look.

12-23-2013, 07:48 PM

1,410 posts, read 2,042,920 times

Reputation: 1168

Another thing about teens from the 70s looking older:
You may be watching too many "Welcome Back, Kotter" reruns. Damn, those sweathogs looked old for teens.

12-23-2013, 07:52 PM

1,410 posts, read 2,042,920 times

Reputation: 1168

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceece

I think in the older days, there wasn't really a distinctive style of clothing and hair just for teens. Preadulescense, you dressed and did your hair like a kid. Once puberty was underway, you dressed and groomed like a mature adult. I think the popularity of jeans changed that, along with girdles and beehive hairdos falling out of fashion.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 13

12-24-2013, 01:54 AM

Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma

31,004 posts, read 19,783,252 times

Reputation: 9636

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slater

Gun control was way back on the national agenda, and you could buy an AR-15 assault rifle at Montgomery Ward. Of course, mass shootings simply weren't a known phenomenon back then and certainly not at schools. I'm not sure how or why that changed over the years,

Don't forget about the mass shooter, who killed 13 and wounded many more, from the Texas University tower in 1966.

12-24-2013, 05:07 AM

1,410 posts, read 2,047,982 times

Reputation: 1168

I saw this movie from 1975 called "Smile", about a small town teen beauty pageant. The girls looked their ages, but compared to today's standards, I wouldn't consider them beauty pageant material. By today's standards, most of them would be considered average and some Plain Janes.

12-24-2013, 07:31 AM

Location: Pacific NW

6,413 posts, read 11,553,452 times

Reputation: 5853

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slater

I tell ya, nothing's been the same since David Lee Roth left Van Halen

I take it you've never heard of the Texas Tower Sniper (1966), and it's certainly nothing to be proud of, but here's a list of the school shootings in the 1970s, the Iran Hostage Crisis (1979), the Vietnam War (ended in 1975), César Chavez and the United Farm Workers (founded 1962).

Issues in the 1970s were no less issues than they are today. The specifics of them have just changed. And the way that society treats them has changed. I remember in middle school (late 1960s) a classmate of mine committed suicide on the school grounds (not during school). We knew it had happened. We didn't know why (I still don't know why). There were no grief counselors. It wasn't brought up in school. We went on with our lives.

12-24-2013, 08:17 AM

2,972 posts, read 3,080,001 times

Reputation: 4231

I'm considered a Boomer I guess but I feel more like a Soundgarden person than a Beatles person. There is so much overgeneralization. My group didn't like hippies. We were more punk, but Straight Edge punk-meaning no violence and no drugs.

We didn't identify with the tune in, turn on, drop out thing, or whatever it was.

12-24-2013, 08:24 AM

Location: Cleveland, Ohio

453 posts, read 602,799 times

Reputation: 673

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByeByeLW

We didn't identify with the tune in, turn on, drop out thing, or whatever it was.

Nether did most of the late-born Boomers, having been just children through most of that. On the other hand, Soundgarden isn't really my thing either. I'm more classic rock.

12-24-2013, 08:46 AM

11,525 posts, read 13,676,035 times

Reputation: 16758

Wow, we never looked "old" at all. Better than the teeny boppers do now. We dressed cool and looked good!

12-24-2013, 11:09 AM

47,531 posts, read 66,752,197 times

Reputation: 22408

Quote:

Originally Posted by todd00

I do too -- but for the most part, I really don't see the difference. They wore "old" hairstyles back then, styles associated still with older people and you don't see them on many 16 year olds today.

12-24-2013, 11:33 AM

Location: Glasgow Scotland

17,533 posts, read 16,597,470 times

Reputation: 26533

Id say the 50s hairdos on girls looked older just like their mothers, with perms and pincurls, but the 60s and 70s I wouldnt say so at all... the 80s clothes for women were horrible though..

12-24-2013, 11:34 AM

2,094 posts, read 3,466,879 times

Reputation: 2285

Quote:

Originally Posted by temazepam

Another thing about teens from the 70s looking older:
You may be watching too many "Welcome Back, Kotter" reruns. Damn, those sweathogs looked old for teens.

I think Horshack was 37~LOL

12-24-2013, 12:36 PM

Location: State of Transition

97,634 posts, read 95,482,758 times

Reputation: 108132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

I had said:

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

What ought to seem weird is college students not trying to look like (or act like) adults. "Trying to look like" is what I said.

Back in the 1970s, an 18 or 19 year old whether in college or not was entering the adult world and trying to look like he or she belonged. For most of us, there was no question of leaving our parents' houses after high school, either for a job, for the military, or for college. Life as children was done.

"Here's your suitcase, son. We love you. Be sure to visit on holidays."

All college students are quite quick to call themselves adults. I haven't met one who says, "I'm not grown, I'm just a kid." So it's strange that they would not try to look like what they claim to be.

I really think that varied a lot, regionally. On the West Coast, and especially in the hippy and counter-culture centers in California (especially Berkeley, San Francisco, lots of photos available of that era), very few had any interest in trying to look like they belonged to the adult world. The fact that they didn't live in their parents' house is irrelevant. Many people lived in communal households with their friends, some were able to get jobs, others didn't have steady 8 hr/day jobs due in part to the difficult economic times, but in liberal areas, no one was required to "look like an adult". Men could get jobs even though they had very long hair. Women at 21 or 22 still looked like kids. There's no way to dress up a baby face and make it look matronly. It takes time for bodies and facial features to mature. The late 60's and 70's, and into the 80's, were famously characterized by a "youth culture". Few people (again, this probably varies regionally, but this is typical of the West Coast) had any interest in making themselves look older than they actually were.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 14

12-24-2013, 03:40 PM

Location: Arizona

2,301 posts, read 1,864,055 times

Reputation: 3368

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Several issues in the 1970's aren't really as much front page news as they were then. Women's rights/the Equal Rights Amendment, school bussing (remember that?), etc. Homegrown urban terrorism was in vogue with many extremists such as the SLA, and to some extent it's still an issue, but the modern focus is on external threats.

12-24-2013, 05:30 PM

26,563 posts, read 16,016,199 times

Reputation: 28773

Quote:

Originally Posted by temazepam

It seems to be true that the pressure to he "hot" was not as great then. My daughter often points out how plain the top pop music stars were in the 80s--it's pretty tough to be a top pop star today without being hot.

12-24-2013, 05:31 PM

26,563 posts, read 16,016,199 times

Reputation: 28773

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That was a different view of what "adult" should look like.

But they were definitely not still trying to continue the look of adolescents.

12-26-2013, 11:31 AM

346 posts, read 590,294 times

Reputation: 604

Also, most school districts transfer older students into different programs or schools, or many such students - if they do not drop out - go to some alternative GED type program. But in the past, some students would stay in high school until they graduated, even if over 20.

12-26-2013, 12:39 PM

Location: On the Chesapeake

40,936 posts, read 53,137,514 times

Reputation: 54819

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewTexico76

You have it reversed, in the past older students dropped out or went to, in limited numbers, to alternative programs. Today, due to a variety of access to education laws, students stay in school until 21.

12-26-2013, 04:55 PM

19,672 posts, read 27,892,401 times

Reputation: 38861

half our class stayed back a year or two,,, the "special" classes hadnt started yet,,so the adhd/autistic/hyper kids stayed back they may have been 20 at graduation,,no wonder they looked older you go back a few decades alot of kids worked very hard around the farm,,, they aged quicker also keep in mind, the drinking age was 18 yrs ago, many juniors and seniors could "buy" and again,,many kids smoked, and no one used sunblock years ago,,,only suntan lotion,,, their was one brand in a brown container still like the smelll..something like coconut.. seriously, a few on here mentioned the average weight thru the years has increased...which is probly true,,

the skinny twigs always look a bit older,,look at survivor shows,,,they age 5 yrs with every 10lbs they lose

12-26-2013, 06:30 PM

66,774 posts, read 55,927,201 times

Reputation: 19869

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

You are saying the opposite of what the OP is saying.

Still,I say its obesity that makes the kids look younger,and what you describe as pneumatic bodies

I don't know if it's obesity. I lost quite a bit of weight over the last year(my weight is back to the 130s range like it was when I was 21). I'm 27 and my mother tells me that I look like a kid from my weight loss. I get the same reaction from other people, that I look younger from weight loss.

12-26-2013, 11:57 PM

Location: Melbourne, Australia

9,781 posts, read 19,202,466 times

Reputation: 2833

Teens are taller than ever. It's a combination of dress, hairstyle and for women, wearing less makeup.

12-28-2013, 03:02 PM

Location: Eugene, Oregon

1,203 posts, read 1,150,500 times

Reputation: 998

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kineticity

Nether did most of the late-born Boomers, having been just children through most of that. On the other hand, Soundgarden isn't really my thing either. I'm more classic rock.

The likelihood of exposure to drugs undoubtedly varied with the region and/or whatever set you hung out with. There was a fair amount of pot (and I'm sure other) drugs being used at my high school, from which I graduated in 1975. I found more of it at UCSD where I started that Fall; as far as the notion of a drug culture went, it was still a continuation of the 1960s; as for hair and fashion styles, a bit less so. Guys were still wearing long hair, but quite a few girls were beginning to sport bobs, really short "boy" cuts, and short "windswept" dos. While disco, of course, was huge for some people, most of us at UCSD preferred FM rock, or what is now called classic rock. I learned to play guitar by following along with many of those songs, but in hindsight much of it seems terribly bland and pedestrian, as if there'd been a reaction against the more overtly psychedelic and exploratory trends in the late 1960s. I can barely abide classic rock radio now, although that's partly because they usually keep trotting out the same old hits and ignore the interesting album tracks. If I never hear "Double Vision" again it'll be too soon...Where was I?

For me the new wave/punk era of music was good, but I preferred more melodic groups like X and Squeeze over hardcore acts like the Sex Pistols. I liked what was happening in the early 1990s, too. At about this time, when Blockbuster was still running music stores, some executive or other decided to take advantage of the CD format by re-introducing a music store tradition that had long since been dropped: allowing customers to listen to a CD before they bought it. I don't know why, but I identified more with the music of the early 90s than with any of the trends and styles I'd grown up with.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Page 15

11-29-2013, 08:51 AM

Location: MO->MI->CA->TX->MA

6,980 posts, read 13,700,735 times

Reputation: 5505

(Not sure if this is more appropriate for the World forum.. if so, please move it there, Mods.) Are there any examples of prominent figures who have fled their home countries for fear of persecution only to be hunted down and killed in another country? The one example I can think of is Leon Trotsky of the Soviet Union.. who fled to Mexico and was hunted down by the Soviet secret police who came to Mexico to kill him.

Any other examples?

11-29-2013, 09:10 AM

Status: "Present" (set 10 days ago)

Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev

10,580 posts, read 8,762,849 times

Reputation: 37731

Orlando Letelier, a Chilean dissident opposed to the dictatorship of General Pinochet, was killed in Washington, DC, by a car bomb planted by the Chilean secret police.
Letelier assassination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov opposed to the communist regime in Sofia was famously killed in London, apparently by the Bulgarian secret police using an umbrella modified to inject a poison-containing pellet into his leg.

Georgi Markov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12-28-2013, 01:13 AM

Location: Earth

17,443 posts, read 27,079,111 times

Reputation: 7440

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragnarkar

Any other examples?

Carlo Tresca

12-28-2013, 03:32 PM

Location: SoCal

5,902 posts, read 5,424,546 times

Reputation: 1930

Would Ante Pavelic work/count for this?

12-28-2013, 05:58 PM

Location: Miami, FL

8,088 posts, read 9,186,010 times

Reputation: 6650

Somoza

12-28-2013, 07:16 PM

17,506 posts, read 23,856,794 times

Reputation: 19292

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragnarkar

Any other examples?

he didn't flee. he was kicked out and rightfully so. This man hands are shoulder high thick soaked in blood of millions. His kill was a minor necessity, considering him still being used for political games and manipulations by those in power. It was MUCH lesser evil, than having him alive.

Depending on who you listen to, you may consider him a hero, or a criminal, hunted down and killed. Stepan Bandera.