neo-Victorianism could work across the aisle
And neo-Victorianism would certainly be my choice. Never mind frumpy clothing, covering up table legs, and banishing sexuality to the marriage bed or the seedy parts of town where nobody respectable would be caught dead ... strict rules for mixed-sex socialization, long, formal courtship, and constant supervision by family would remove a whole lot of the guesswork and fear on both sides. If safety is what is needed, then it would be an interesting irony that the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be.
36 comments
"And neo-Victorianism would certainly be my choice"
Don't let us stop you. Go right ahead. Oh, you meant neo-Victorianism for everyone else? In that case, why don't you take a seat over there [points to corner].
"....the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be."
"Healthy"....you keep using that word [Inigo Montoya mode OFF].
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
I really wouldn't mind the fashion coming back but only if it was a choice and not forced on everyone else. My tastes aren't everyone's!
Also, you have no idea how randy the Victorians were, huh? Sex was rampant. Brothels, dirty poetry, mistresses, lovers, STD's, out of wedlock births, all of those things were staples of Victorian life. They had midwives, contraceptives, and even abortions. Hell, the abortions were more liberal back then as the only way to be sure you were pregnant was when the child "quickened" in the womb and started to move. Any termination before that moment was considered a normal procedure to "restore the menses flow."
Although how easily one could procure an abortion did rely on one's class and money, but I digress. It's not like it's much easier now anyway.
Have you taken a look at the rates of venereal disease in the Victorian Era? Hidden behind this veil of embarrassment and secrecy (at one time, doctors thought it ethically OK not to tell a patient they were dying of an STD because it was embarrassing), it is estimated that, at some points in the Victorian Era, 15% of the population had an in incurable STD. Babies were born dying due to an STD from their mothers. Men and women were diagnosed as being insane when in fact they were dying of syphilis.
You, Visceral, are not only a fool, but a dangerous one.
neo-Victorianism, the fear of reality, especially its sexual aspects. The haunting fear that someone somewhere is having fun and orgasms without first seeking approval from oneself, approval that will never be granted incidentally. The enjoyment of a large glass of Tears Of Rage before a log fire or electric heater. A fondness for delicate aromas such as Mist Of Ancient Fart and antiperspirants like Sweaty Gusset. A morbid taste for vain keyboard pounding in the loneliness of ones own domain or basement.
It would've been quicker to type LOL!
You do realize that prim and proper image was a paper thin facade and everyone was so repressed that it is noted among historians that behind closed doors Victorian era men and women were debased enough to make Pink Flamingos look tame, don't you?
Taking the attitude that "keeping up appearances" is paramount can actually do some fairly wide-reaching damage. Trust me on that one.
@Mister Spak
image
Badum-tsssssh.
the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be.
Except for all those respectable people going to the parts of town where they wouldn't want to be caught dead and bringing home STD's. You know, just like they did in the original Victorian era.
If you really want to see what life in the Victorian era was like, read My Secret Life written anonymously by an Englishman who detailed his sexual exploits. It's available as a free ebook on gutenberg.org. Some of the stories he relates about his sexual exploits would shock the hell out of modern sexually-repressed numpties who think that life was much better back then because nobody had sex out of wedlock.
strict rules for mixed-sex socialization
image
long, formal courtship and constant supervision of the family
image
If safety is what is needed, then it would be an interesting irony that the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be.
image
Ah, yes. Let's let society slip backwards into a more sexist, stratified society. Why would anyone want to have the freedom to choose who they marry without catering to their family's whims. It's madness, I tell you.
"neo-Victorian ism could work across the aisle"
...yet, Queen Victoria had nine children. For the Protestant head of the Church of England she was, it was known that she & Prince Albert loved to have sex; why do you think the term 'Prince Albert' for that form of male genital piercing exists, vis-a-V Cornflake Boy...?! >:D
'neo-Victorian ism could work across the aisle' you say? Well, considering historical fact , a definite case of not ...!
Do some research on British history in future, V. Fruit Loop.
@pyro
Let yours truly - and Pinkie Pie - reinforce your sentiment, re. Mister Spak's groan-inducing visual pun:
image
/)^3^(\
Since most of the rules protecting "virtue" in Victorian society involved restricting the freedom of women, and placing a much greater stigma on them for any perceived impropriety while men did anything they damn well pleased, short of being seen with a prostitute, without fear of being ruined socially forever, you'll be pleased to know there are still places you can go to live your Victorian-style dream. Please step into the ticket line for a one-way trip to Saudi Arabia.
Since most of the rules protecting "virtue" in Victorian society involved restricting the freedom of women, and placing a much greater stigma on them for any perceived impropriety while men did anything they damn well pleased, short of being seen with a prostitute, without fear of being ruined socially forever, you'll be pleased to know there are still places you can go to live your Victorian-style dream. Please step into the ticket line for a one-way trip to Saudi Arabia.
Wasn't it in the Victorian time they thought that the woman had to have an orgasm in order to become pregnant? If one became pregnant after a rape, they didn't believe it was rape, as she must have enjoyed herself enough to have an orgasm (completely ignoring the fact that orgasms can happen whether a person wants to or not).
Visceral, do you seriously believe that sexuality is more healthy in, say, Afghanistan or Pakistan, than in Sweden or Norway?
"If safety is what is needed, then it would be an interesting irony that the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be."
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin (a randy fellow if ever there was one)
And for that matter, aside from your attempt to curtail my essential liberty, why are you trying to interfere with my inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness?
Take your comedy of manners and shove it.
Joy. Yet another idiot who thinks ignoring the problem solves it. It doesn't. Case in point everything written about the Victorians in this comment thread. :3
Actually banning something doesn't make it go away, it just makes it illegal. And less safe and healthy. (This is why it's only reasonable to ban stuff that can't be safe sane and consensual.)
"If safety is what is needed, then it would be an interesting irony that the more regulated sexuality becomes, the healthier it would be."
It might be if it were true. Got any evidence that's the case?
and yet I'd bet Visceral also self-identifies as a "small-government conservative" who is against even the slightest regulation of business.
What is it about conservatives that they love the idea of a strict social code, but hate the idea of government?
It's always sad to see people thinking any era of the past was a time of true sexual purity and restraint, or that men and women had an easier time getting on with mystery, repression, and even escorts. "What do women mean/want?" was a common frustrated-man trope long before the 60's, bub.
Hell, my family's immensely laid back and leftist about sexuality, I love historical aesthetics and playing at historical culture/events, and even I don't want a long, formal courtship or constant supervision by family!
@Meeeh
The comment from Chris Worth on that channel sums it up. And thank goodness for Keepvid.com.
(With apologies to the sane people of the US, including you, o FSTDTers from that fair nation! I hope Riley Mills dies too ;) )
@Kevin Klawitter
What is it about conservatives that they love the idea of a strict social code, but hate the idea of government
The same thing as any self-appointed moral guardian from Jack Thompson and Phyllis Schlaffly to the neighbor that keeps reporting people to the cops or the association because their driveway is a little dirty: THEY want to be the ones that control people. And government regulating business doesn't give them nearly as much power or purpose as laws against sex where they can snoop on their neighbors and report them to the authorities the second it looks like they switch to something kinkier than missionary through a hole in the sheet with the lights off.
@Iron Warrior
He's a progressive? Well, the assessment still doesn't change. Liberal, conservative, fascist, or libertarian, busy-bodies are busy-bodies and the motivation is the same.
yeah, because the Puritans, Mormons, Mennonites, and other closed communities are what we all need to aspire to.
"THEY want to be the ones that control people."
Exactly, just as all those groups above have their Elders. Bosses that don't enforce laws, provide social services or really help or provide in any way but are IN CHARGE OF YOUR ENTIRE LIFE: YOUR MASTERS, THEY OWN YOU.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
