Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > senecaguy2 > Sex - Hot - Cold - Fun - Funny |
Interestting look at sex in 19th and early 20th C
|
Interestting look at sex in 19th and early 20th C Nineteenth-century male society held an ideal of womanhood to which women were encouraged and forced to adhere: selfless and compassionate; the ideal woman’s criminal counterpart was ruthlessly obstinate. Studies into emphasised the class divide in sexual morals: Cominos wrote that women were viewed as either ‘sexless ministering angels or sensuously oversexed temptresses of the devil’, with no middle ground (Himmelfarb, 1995: 74). Butler argued men had created this divide and spoke of the exploitation of both respectable women and prostitutes, the two described thus: The protected and refined ladies who are not only to be good, but who are, if possible, to know nothing except what is good; and those poor outcast daughters of the people whom they purchase with money, with whom they think they may consort in evil whenever it pleases them to do so, before returning to their own separated and protected homes (Butler, 1879: 9-10). This reveals the male exploitation of a lower class to uphold the ideals of a more respectable rank of women, who were equally repressed. Offering an interpretation of why men imposed these feminine ideals upon women, Tait wrote that ‘men are, in general, possessed of greater mental power and activity than females; but that is why they ought to extend towards the latter that sympathy and protection to which they are entitled in virtue of their weak and unprotected condition’ (Tait, 1840: 152). Despite male power, it was thought that women were ‘morally superior’, controlling their sensibilities and regulating their sexual desires in a way which was supposedly beyond male capability. The Westminster Review in 1850 noted that men merely exploit this ‘strange and sublime unselfishness’ by making them servile (Miller, 1859: 6). (Reinvention: An International Journal of Undergraduate Research) The chief characteristic of Victorianism was not moral virtuousness, but the appearance of moral virtuousness. The world did not have to be perfect, it only had to seem so. The necessity of maintaining a good image put quite a strain on people, especially those connected with morally dubious businesses. But people made do, as did the anonymous author of a guide to whorehouses in New York City, who resorted to an ingenious contrivance to give his book respectability. Beginning his volume with a quotation from Shakespeare, he went on to explain that his little book was written to give the reader “an insight into the character and doings of people whose deeds are carefully screened from public view; when we describe their houses, and give their location, we supply the stranger with information of which he stands in need, we supply a void that otherwise must remain unfilled. Not that we imagine the reader will ever desire to visit these houses. Certainly not; he is, we do not doubt, a member of the Bible Society, a bright and shining light, like Newful Gardner or John Allen. But we point out the location of these places in order that the reader may know how to avoid them. . . . Our book will, therefore, be like a warning voice to the unwary—like a buoy attached to a sunken rock, which warns the unexperienced Mariner to sheer off, lest he should be wrecked on a dangerous and unknown coast.” This explains why the book describes the houses in vivid detail and even reports on the beauty of the women and advises whether a letter of introduction is needed at any parlor. SOURCE: The Gentleman’s Directory (New York: privately published, 1870), passim. So what are your thoughts? |
|||
|
Let me start with NOT ALL MEN OR ALL WOMEN do what I am about to say, so please don't yell at me and say not all men as I know that. I don't want to keep typing it after each sentence. Sadly even today the whore/Madonna thing still exists. I see men that want to have wild sex, but they wouldn't think of marrying THAT woman. They want the pious woman for their wife. If a woman is having sex she is considered a whore or a slut, promiscuous, These are not complimentary words. Men are considered studs or gigalos. Much nicer words are used for them. When men see a woman that is more sexual they flock to her as if they believe she is easy so they can get some and move on. Then they get married to these women that are the pious ones and then they complain she won't do the wild sex things they really wanted. Then they call her names for not doing such and many of those words are incorrectly used such as being a prude. To be a prude or prudent means a person with such attitude to sexuality may have reservations about nudity, public display of sexual affection, discussion of sexual matters, participating in romantic or sexual activity—reservations that exceed normal prevailing community standards. Another use of "prude" is as a label and an insult directed to anybody having reservations resulting from standards of modesty or even any moral standards and beliefs or which are not shared by the offender. Thus one can be labelled a "prude" for expressing reservations about drinking alcohol, or consuming other drugs, or participating in mischief. I am a prude. I DO have a more reserved look at drinking, smoking, and how I display my sexuality. That doesn't mean I am not having sex nor I am not wild in bed. It means I am going to be PRUDENT about it and not tell the entire world what I do in my private time.  Being a prudent person or a prude was originally a compliment to women for having the proper decorum in public. A PRIG is the woman that won't even talk about things and is overly self-righteous about things. It is sad that in today's day and age though that society still pigeon holes people into categories based on what they do and do not do sexually and they choose partners based on that. I have no doubt that in 1600's and such that many a wife was a prude/prudent in public and was wild in bed. It just wasn't talked about.
|
Become a member to create a blog
