Not a Speedo in sight. Before men had double standards thanks to some selfish coal miners acting like everyone wanted to see their nipples. I think you can measure civilization in how the common man dresses. Orange waxed homoerotic chests and short-shorts being on the other end of the apocalypse scale.
Only the children bare their legs because children aren’t sexualised, how nice.
Everyone wears sensible linen, much cooler than the poly crap from China now.
Most of us still abide by these rules generally? The only exceptions are chavs and chavettes, that’s why we look down on them as bestial people, quite feral. We need to bring back general consideration of other people (high trust behaviour) but at least it exists in my social circles…
It’s funny that Americans view this as so improbable and old-fashioned when most of those rules still apply today here. Like, English people don’t speak to strangers in the street, but a man speaking a woman (especially a lone woman) is expected to be a thief at best or more likely a rapist, causing foreign PUAs to complain online and nag that their ‘game’ doesn’t work in England because the English still living here view their predations on random women as well, …predatory, and opportunistic (BECAUSE THEY ARE) or at least uncouth. Women can speak to men first because there’s no physical threat but if she’s trying to lure him elsewhere the same caution applies. We view it as common sense really. Flirts are unpopular, especially the men. I remember one man who was a bit foreign in upbringing and didn’t ‘get it’ going around a large packed room asking half the women out (myself included) and had the nerve to be offended we all turned him down. It was detestable. Dating too many people is frowned upon and asking too many people out will get you a reputation, since it’s insulting to the quality of that person. Hollywood lies. Players are isolated here, if you keep bringing pests to parties you’ll stop getting invited yourself. The men in the room didn’t like him either and he was ostracized for a while after. The guys going on about The Good Old Days never stop to think how much of their own conduct would be stigmatized. They’d be the loser of the group like that guy, they’d probably be the reject of any Patriarchy, which frowns on bachelors until they’re proven trustworthy (aka not creepy, gay or a secret pedo). The scorecard looks completely different to degenerate coastal America. We are not socially postmodern, Westminster types do not count. We still have the gentleman ideal, we call him professional or polite.
It’s easy to play spot the (coastal, urban) American when they complain a lady never held the door open for them. I was raised to do that all the time growing up and it was normal, if I touched the door first while wearing trousers and flatter shoes or if a man was carrying something heavy with both hands.It’s common sense. Women seldom do if we wear a dress and heels because of the skirt length and heels. Etiquette then dictates not to. In the evening, men always open the doors. It’s a masculine thing. Also, we avoid doing it for men we sense fancy us because foreigners in particular view manners as a pick-up. …It’s a door.
The ‘domineering’ point is correct, it’s viewed as mental abuse, an unhealthy power dynamic. How insecure must a man be? The man is viewed as cruel and passed over by the woman (if she’s smart) and at work (since he cannot lead normally). Since women are gentler, it’s akin to bullying a child. We can’t fist fight into honour, nothing to do with intellect. You’re also supposed to hear women out and find common agreement, more than turning reddit atheistkult and playing Well Actually… So-called negging is viewed as quite homosexual, although you obviously won’t see that in books. It’s the main gay flirting tactic so confusing to apply to women, who will assume you’re bi minimum. I’ve seen American men try it on to ‘AMOG’ in English circles and be confused when it never worked. We don’t like homo-erotic bullies? A lot of metrosexual bitchy whining nagging behaviour is viewed as urban effete American and avoided. Like accidental texts about a woman being too fat/ugly after she turns down a man…. I cannot believe adults consider that acceptable. All the cowardly stuff is to be avoided, anything that triggers mantrums: Long rants about ‘females’, how your exes were all ‘crazy’ – people assume it was your fault. You picked them all. People assume you’re a crazy-maker and two-faced. Assuming all marriages are unhappy says a lot about your class level. Assuming race-mixing is normal suggests your friends lack in traditional principles and have bad taste (xenophilia), lots of things ‘give away’ the fake Ks pretending they aren’t PC when they think what is normal truly, statistically is not. Too much Ikea, clothing minimalism, a bachelor identity they cling to like a male cat lady, liking crude violent sexual humour e.g. bang… it’s repulsive to English people generally. Refusing to acknowledge these are rude when it’s explained is gaslighting, since we know our own culture and we don’t want to be coastal America. We voted to leave the EU and some of them have some manners. Calling us ‘uptight’ for saying an American was going ‘too far’ is declasse. If you want polite society, you must follow the rules. Yes, follow, we all do. Americans imitate their crass comedians, we view ours as jesters and buffoons i.e. what not to do. Mainly, do not discuss your pipes – ANY of them. Tell only a doctor.
“it is further said that a woman’s love “will wane” or that “her admiration will sicken and die” if her man over time acts with effeminacy.”
True but he shouldn’t be a brute either.
“Sexual indulgences, are, under marriage association, kept down to a reasonable and harmless minimum.”
Quality over quantity, true.
People are pressured to have more sex than ever, yet they’re miserable.
Sexual hygiene went out the window in the 20th century and we’ve lived to see the result. Over-indulgence was known to lead to ill-health including self abuse. Nowadays we know it strains the body especially all this modern adrenal malfunction.
“The Victorian-era corset has been found to have had lasting damaging effects on women’s skeletons.”
False, feminists lying. There were X-rays done of women in corsets, it was about the same effect as pregnancy pressure. Average waist was something like 24 inches? Tightlacing was RARE.
Smaller for men of course. Food portions were tiny, just look at 50s diner portions.
“men do not fall in love with a tiny waist, unless the owner happens to have several other points of beauty to carry it off.”
and men have naturally smaller waists than women (taller, fewer organs).
Trannies have a number of unfair advantages. Many have the gamine look (large head).
Freedom fighting isn’t a cover for raping a bunch of white women but okay, history. OK.
It’s difficult to find discussions of this.
As Jenny Sharpe has shown, other accounts invoked the ultimately unrepresentable rape of British women through hints and innuendoes
If you want to liberate your race, why murder white babies and rape the mothers or their daughters?
This was the rape gang scandal of its time and inspired paintings.
There are some acts of atrocity so abominable that they will not even bear narration… We cannot print these narratives—they are too foul for publication. We should have
to speak of families murdered in cold blood—and murder was mercy!—of the violation
of English ladies in the presence of their husbands, of their parents, of their children—and
then, but not till then, of their assassination
Who talks about this?
In similar terms of unrepresentability, the Englishwoman’s Review reported in August 1857 that “the details of the sufferings and barbarities endured by English women and children almost surpass imagination
Back when men were men and protected their women.
Unless you wanna claim you can install the greatest Empire ever and not be a Patriarchy.
Which I don’t think anyone is going to claim.
The Englishwoman’s Review (and Drawing Room Journal of Social Progress,
Literature and Art) was published from 1857 to 1859 and was, according to Margaret
Bentham, a “proto-feminist” journal that sought “to address the women of England
from the women’s point of view”. Although it identified the lack of occupation for
middle class women as a pressing social problem, the Englishwomen’s Review refused
“to prate of women’s rights”, and rather redefined “rights” and “occupation” in more feminized terms as “usefulness and kindness”. In its extensive coverage of the conflict
in India, the Englishwomen’s Review focused on the fate of British women. As Vron
Ware explains, the paper adopted the tone of the aggrieved victim, giving full encouragement to the brave men who survived to avenge their sex. Accounts of dead children, of rooms filled with blood, matted hair, mangled toys, rotting clothes, would all have had a particular impact in the pages of a woman’s paper which aimed to reinforce the conventional female role in the domestic sphere.[
The men were scared to cover this.
In its coverage of female victims in the ‘mutiny’ and its calls to avenge their suffering,
articles in the Englishwoman’s Review closely resembled those that appeared in more
mainstream newspapers with largely male readers such as the Times and the Illustrated
London News. But, at the same time, another newspaper that was addressed to female
readers interpreted events in India in markedly different ways. Although the Lady’s
Newspaper and Pictorial Times reflected the same domestic concerns as the Englishwoman’s
Review, its interpretation of events in India was very different. Unlike the
Englishwoman’s Review, the extensive coverage of the ‘mutiny’ in the Lady’s Newspaper
included several vehement protests against ‘the war cry “For the Ladies and the
Those are the SJWs. Nowadays they’d work in Rotherham.
But its coverage of the Indian uprising came to eclipse all other
stories in 1857 because “every other matter is just now of secondary importance. The magnitude of the atrocities and the immensity of the stake have united to secure the public mind, and it is satisfied only with what has reference to the great rebellion”.
This used to be common knowledge, do your schools mention this? Haha no. Don’t be silly. All Indians were Gandhi and their holy men never rape little girls, they just sleep in the same room alone to “test” themselves.
In August, the Lady’s Newspaper pleaded that: If there is a political necessity for wholesale butchery, let it not be done in the name of
woman; if the women and the children of our country have been the victims of the
heathen, it is not so we would have them avenged; if we cannot raise these barbarians
to our own light, let us not sink into their darkness; if we sicken with horror at their
atrocities, let us not follow in their blood-stained footsteps.
Victorian “If you kill your enemies, they win”.
Honour doesn’t win you wars but it’s a good start.
In the context of masculine discourses of honour, heroism, and revenge,
the prestige of the British army and its success in reestablishing British rule were
inextricably linked to its ability either to protect or to avenge British women.
If you can’t defend your women and children you are not a man and deserve neither.
It’s very simple.
That’s their traditional purpose of living!
Anyway, read around.
Indians were not dorky sidekicks in a shitty sitcom.
That’s like thinking all gay men are toe-tapping effete sweethearts.
In 1857, British rule in India was challenged when Indian sepoy troops of the British Indian Army began a year-long insurrection against the British. To the British, the most shocking aspect of the events in India was the massacre of white women and children by Indian men. There was extensive coverage in the press and illustrated journals, which stimulated calls for revenge..
In newspaper accounts, parliamentary debates and visual images, the severity of the conﬂict came to be embodied by the fate of British women and the deﬁlement of their bodies and their homes.
Historically, we’ll be the same.
Paton’s famous painting In Memoriam was dedicated by the artist to the Christian heroism of “British Ladies in India during the Mutiny of 1857.” In 1858, the first version of the painting, which depicted Indian sepoy troops bursting through the door, was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Art in London.
Ideologically, the Rebellion dramatically increased racial antagonisms between Britons and Indians. On the British side, this was in large part due to the savage attack on British women and children, who were allegedly being raped and murdered by fanatic soldiers in alarming numbers. The British had to have a heroic fight against depraved sepoys intent on rape and murder of innocent and helpless English women and children.
The depth of public reaction to the murders was due in large part to the lurid nature of the published accounts. Though papers frequently argued that the ‘vile tortures’ practised upon British women and children should “be remembered, not told,” all of them did in fact ‘tell’ of rape and torture in graphic detail.
but not the babies
Indians had the original fetish for baby rape, it’s the tribal rumour thing. I wouldn’t be shocked if the African HIV thing originally came from India. They cover wounds in cow shit and drink from the corpse strewn Ganges. I saw a photo taken of what looked like a dog playing with a football, just out of a tourist area. No, head of a child.
None of them care. It’s savagery of the first order.
To assume everyone has a conscience is very white privilege.
Letters and telegraphs flooded the papers with accounts of women being raped in front of their children before being killed, of matted blood, gory remains of children’s limbs, and of the suffocation of living children among their dead mothers when the victims were thrown into a well.
Such graphic tales of rape and murder inflamed public sentiments calling for vengeance on a massive scale. The Illustrated London News voiced its indignation in tandem with most other national, provincial, and local papers when it claimed that “every British heart, from the highest to the humblest of the land, glows with honest wrath, and demands justice, prompt and unsparing, on the bloodyminded instruments of the Rebellion.”
Strangers (swarthy strangers) on the internet encourage you not to care, because women and children supposedly “deserve it” for things voted in before their birth. Well, if we do end up running a black flag over a monarch’s dead body, the men who refused to defend this country will “deserve” to lose their head.
Like, I wanted to throw up researching this. Proceed at own risk.
I haven’t included gory pictures out of mercy. Somehow, this is more horrifying.
5k words again.
I’ve been noticing things again.
I’ve been induced by a friend to post content from a long discussion of ‘coincidences’. I’m nervous about the implications of connecting this information so let’s chalk it up as a thought experiment.
I tried to keep this somewhat lighter by retaining fragments of conversation that don’t lead to identification.
There’s the TLDR if you want it. Seriously, reconsider how much time you want to spend reading about disturbed human psyches before you pass the break. We’re talking 4-figures here and most of it not my writing.
The implications of the mid-Victorian story are far-reaching, because, unlike the paleolithic scenario, details of the mid-Victorian lifestyle and its impact on public health are extensively documented. Thus, the mid-Victorian experience clearly shows us that:
Degenerative diseases are not caused by old age (the ‘wear and tear’ hypothesis); but are driven, in the main, by chronic malnutrition. Our low energy lifestyles leave us depleted in anabolic and anti-catabolic co-factors; and this imbalance is compounded by excessive intakes of inflammatory compounds. The current epidemic of degenerative disease is caused by widespread problem of multiple micro- and phyto-nutrient depletion (Type B malnutrition.)
With the exception of family planning and antibiotics, the vast edifice of twentieth century healthcare has generated little more than tools to suppress symptoms of the degenerative diseases which have emerged due to our failure to maintain mid-Victorian nutritional standards.
The only way to combat the adverse effects of Type B malnutrition, and to prevent and / or cure degenerative disease, is to enhance the nutrient density of the modern diet.
The nutrient profile of modern food is inexcusable.
It’s literally killing us.
More food than ever, and we’re the malnourished ones. Some progress.
Part of it is vitamin or mineral leaching, caused by bad habits such as alcoholism.
A third or more of households were temperate or teetotal, partly due to the sustained efforts of the anti-alcohol movement.
To end, the sex-positive sluts won’t like this one.
Infection including TB and other lung infections such as pneumonia; epidemics (scarlet fever, smallpox, influenza, typhoid, cholera etc), with spread often linked to poor sanitation: and the sexually transmitted diseases.
Mentioned in passing as if the most obvious cause in the world.
With antibiotic resistance returning, this will return too. Famine, disease, death.
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. –Great God! I’d rather be A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn; Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea; Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.