bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
I’m fairly sure it would get you in some bother in 1889I think in 1989, raping your sister, daughter and your dog was generally frowned upon.
Caveat: depending on your class status
I’m fairly sure it would get you in some bother in 1889I think in 1989, raping your sister, daughter and your dog was generally frowned upon.
I’m fairly sure it would get you in some bother in 1889
Caveat: depending on your class status
I think that caveat still applies a lot of the time.
One of my PE teachers married a girl that was in my year at school. They're still married. I only found out about 20 years later when I ended up working with her and her name had changed and I made a joke about one of our old teachers and she said "Yes that's who I'm married to".Usually only a few years older, but still illegal and dodgy as fuck. There was one girl who had a ‘boyfriend’ (hardly the appropriate word though, perhaps ‘abuser’ is more accurate) in his 30s who we considered to be a ‘dirty old man’ but it was always framed in a jokey manner rather than seen as a cause of concern.
This is totally downplaying it, I'm surprised anyone would argue differently. Talking about raping his daughter as 'adulteries' and 'relationships'.
I definitely remember older blokes letching at young girls just being considered a joke, what cheeky scamps and with the Mandy Smith thing the papers were all 'Lucky old devil, eh?'
There was then, and remains now with some older people, a profound lack of understanding about power relations - 'Well, sure she's young but she gets his money, they both know what they're getting into, and anyway she keeps going back to him, she must want it' or 'I wouldn't mind it if young ladies whistled at me in the streets' or older women saying 'Women have always been able to use sex to get what they want' . Although forcing yourself to sleep with someone you're not attracted to and may even despise to get something he's a gatekeeper to (which he can decide not to grant you once he's fucked you and you won't have any way to object) is not a superpower, it's a humiliation
Or perhaps you go the other way and just give the title of the work, a year and the name of the artist, and don't go into it any more than that. So you don't tell the story of how it was made or mention the artist's intentions, artistic project, etc, either.I do think though, that separating the art from the artist is a good thing, lets us judge the art solely on its merits. I also think that alongside the works by Eric Gill should be placed plaques detailing his transgressions.
I get what you’re saying.
And I’m not disagreeing, but…
Personally, reading that, I feel like I’m being prepared for something really shocking later on. It doesn’t feel like downplaying, it feels like someone saying “Okay, I’ve got something to tell you….”
I’ve talked to mates from back then (late 70s onwards) and while we all know it’s wrong from today’s perspective and as parents are much more concerned now than our parents were then, we all also somehow felt differently about things back then. That’s not to say that everything was okay, we diid have thresholds and knew when things were wrong. But there was more sexual autonomy at a younger age back then too. Somehow.
As I say I struggle to explain because I struggle to define what was hall wrong back then.
I immediately thought maybe smacking children comes under this, as in it's a bad thing good people might have done in the past where they won't now, but not entirely sure even there.
This is totally downplaying it, I'm surprised anyone would argue differently. Talking about raping his daughter as 'adulteries' and 'relationships'.
fuck knows how they got away with all that underage drinking etc. Backhanding the cops maybe?
I'd say that in a rather fucked-up way it was couched as some kind of widening of equality/inclusivity.
Certainly with societal pressure on sometimes very young girls to get-in there and get on with it. "Youth"/young adult culture was also much less of a thing and occupied a much smaller band between childhood and full adulthood.
Can you give some examples of the kinds of thing you mean? That doesn't sound right to me at all.I once got booted from another site somewhere because I said as you go further back in time the odds of a bloke doing or supporting something considered dodgy today increases to an almost certainty.
A couple of much older gentlemen apparently took offence to that but I stand by it. Unless your shit is whiter than white and you’ve been a fucking saint as a teen in the 50s and 60s then it’s a miracle and we should probably go ahead and bag you for rarity value.
Absolutely. I remember my parents in the 70s and 80s saying things like "poor men being tricked by those young girls - how are they supposed to know how old they are when they dress up like that?"I have heard older relatives discussing a family member who was sexually abused by her step dad as " deliberately flirtatious". As if that behaviour wasn't introduced, encouraged, and reinforced by her fucking nonce abuser.
There's so much internalised misogyny and tolerance of fuck up power dynamics in our society it's unbelievable, and this stuff was uncontested common sense only twenty or so years ago.
Can you give some examples of the kinds of thing you mean? That doesn't sound right to me at all.
I guess my counterargument to that would be to ask how much things have really changed. On other threads on here, you have people saying more or less the opposite - that the existence of the likes of Joe Rogan or that bloke in Romania whose name escapes me shows how young boys today are internalising misogyny like never before.Just from my own childhood growing up with dodgy as hell language, sexist tv shows, racist tv shows. Homophobia on the playground.
It gets worse as you go back as some very every day shit got a pass, namely LADS LADS culture and ignoring some arsehole behaviour - especially if your in the services.
You can know better now but this stuff was all over at one point in ways you can’t imagine things getting a pass these days.
I guess my counterargument to that would be to ask how much things have really changed. On other threads on here, you have people saying more or less the opposite - that the existence of the likes of Joe Rogan or that bloke in Romania whose name escapes me shows how young boys today are internalising misogyny like never before.
This sounds about right to me. Just on the subject of consent, I think times really have changed for the better.I once got booted from another site somewhere because I said as you go further back in time the odds of a bloke doing or supporting something considered dodgy today increases to an almost certainty.
A couple of much older gentlemen apparently took offence to that but I stand by it. Unless your shit is whiter than white and you’ve been a fucking saint as a teen in the 50s and 60s then it’s a miracle and we should probably go ahead and bag you for rarity value.
The Pill was finally permitted for unmarried women in the UK in 1967 (1972 in the USA).
Bill Wyman married Mandy Smith in 1983. She was 13, so born in 1970. The Pill had been available for single women 16 years by the time she was married.
Whatever social changes were caused by the Pill had happened very recently, but for us, at that time, it was background normal. No one used jonnies (HIV hadn’t really hit heteroworld yet) you just assumed someone was on the Pill.
Point being that while sexual mores for us teens was based on the Pill and no fear of pregnancy, we were still operating within the larger structures of what went before and the context of the seismic effects caused by the Pill.
I guess in some ways we were working blind in the 70s and early 80s
Likewise as someone who eats meat I imagine the majority of people looking back to now in the 2050s say will find our treatment of food animals problematic…
Charlotte churchThe widespread prescribing of the Pill to underage girls didn't become a major thing until into the 1970s - For a few years after 1967, it was still not uncommon for GPs to refuse to prescribe to unmarried women (or send them to an FP clinic) and some still refused to prescribe it at all. All the sexual health advice I remember from that period concentrated on barrier methods for unmarried people. By the late 1970s until Gillick, it had become very common though.
Mandy Smith was one of the major turning points though - In the year or so leading-up to Wyman she was constantly plastered over the Red Tops as one of the leading "Temptresses" of the Wild Child thing. Usually in an absolute messed-up state and with a succession of much older men.