jilliak Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I was watching a movie with my grandparents in which a WWII GI and his prospective bride were rushing around in a frenzy trying to get a blood test. This made me wonder, why was that a requirement originally? Now it makes more sense, but I can't quite think why it was before. My grandma said "it was probably to test for VD" (you can imagine the moment in which each of us realized that the other was aware of STDs), and that may be true... I don't know. Any thoughts on my random pondering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abetterjulie Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I was watching a movie with my grandparents in which a WWII GI and his prospective bride were rushing around in a frenzy trying to get a blood test. This made me wonder, why was that a requirement originally? Now it makes more sense, but I can't quite think why it was before. My grandma said "it was probably to test for VD" (you can imagine the moment in which each of us realized that the other was aware of STDs), and that may be true... I don't know. Any thoughts on my random pondering? To make sure they aren't related. That is was always my understanding of it. No offspring with genetic diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unstream Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 It could be in fear of AIDS or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macabre Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 It could be in fear of AIDS or something like that. This is WWII though. No AIDS. (On that note, when did people really know what VD was?) As Julie said it may be to make sure they aren't related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelsea_ann89 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Well if she was a prospective bride... maybe a blood test to see if she was pregnant. I mean, in WWII they couldn't exactly just drop by Rite-Aid and pick up a prego-stick. Plus it probably would've been quite complicated to start a family with a war going on and all... According to this site, the most common reason for a blood test is "to validate, or not, the suspicion of a pregnancy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masaryk Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I was curious, so I did some digging on Wikipedia. I knew that it wouldn't be determine if people were related, since DNA testing didn't exist during WWII (DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950s), and blood typing is too vague to determine relationship. It turns out that Grandma was right; it was a test for VD - specifically syphilis, which was the most deadly/unpleasant/disfiguring STI at the time. Pregnancy testing was a good guess, but pregnancy tests weren't blood tests back then. I won't get into the details here, since it wasn't very pleasant (it involved killing rabbits). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelsea_ann89 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 which was the most deadly/unpleasant/disfiguring STI at the time Unpleasant? Didn't you see that episode of House where the syphilitic old woman had a crush on him?? Syphilis gave her an affinity for poetry and romance! :weird: JK. STDs aren't funny. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jilliak Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 I was curious, so I did some digging on Wikipedia. I knew that it wouldn't be determine if people were related, since DNA testing didn't exist during WWII (DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950s), and blood typing is too vague to determine relationship. It turns out that Grandma was right; it was a test for VD - specifically syphilis, which was the most deadly/unpleasant/disfiguring STI at the time. Pregnancy testing was a good guess, but pregnancy tests weren't blood tests back then. I won't get into the details here, since it wasn't very pleasant (it involved killing rabbits). Wow! Nice one. I had never thought of the relative aspect... but yes I suppose VD is the answer then. Did they test to make sure you weren't marrying unprepared? Like if you had not been notified by your partner? That's considerate of the gov, I suppose. Just not like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephie23 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I was curious, so I did some digging on Wikipedia. I knew that it wouldn't be determine if people were related, since DNA testing didn't exist during WWII (DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950s), and blood typing is too vague to determine relationship. It turns out that Grandma was right; it was a test for VD - specifically syphilis, which was the most deadly/unpleasant/disfiguring STI at the time. Pregnancy testing was a good guess, but pregnancy tests weren't blood tests back then. I won't get into the details here, since it wasn't very pleasant (it involved killing rabbits). I was totally just going to say that you can't tell if you're related by a blood test!!! :P lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abetterjulie Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I was curious, so I did some digging on Wikipedia. I knew that it wouldn't be determine if people were related, since DNA testing didn't exist during WWII (DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950s), and blood typing is too vague to determine relationship. It turns out that Grandma was right; it was a test for VD - specifically syphilis, which was the most deadly/unpleasant/disfiguring STI at the time. Ah, yeah. Duh. Good point about the timeline. I wanted to just have the first three words as I am a succinct gal, but I am trying to avoid those red lines on my posts. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephie23 Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 lmao, we are all trying to avoid the red lines in our posts!! :) This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Stephanie*) because of a violation of the forum rules. Please do not bump an old topic that has been inactive for over 21 days. Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules. Per the reason above, this topic has been LOCKED. Please contact Stephanie* if you have any questions regarding this action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts