tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post972974934672024561..comments2024-03-27T01:25:05.156-07:00Comments on Judith Arnopp - Historical Fiction Author: Lifting the Victorian TableclothJudith Arnopphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10734149908148034800noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post-63604677072664317162015-02-08T07:12:48.453-08:002015-02-08T07:12:48.453-08:00Just found this. Fascinating, as I had recently re...Just found this. Fascinating, as I had recently read about sexual mores under Cromwell and the Puritans in the late 1600's. It seems despite (or because of) the feeling that sexual passion was undesirable even within marriage, still 25% of British brides were pregnant at the time of the ceremony. And I know from my own research that 'illicit' sexuality was rife in England even in the seventeenth century, before the Puritans, but still a sexually repressed environment. Seems that the more you try to suppress it, the more kinky people get about sex!RADayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340243972875422944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post-6590319353724446562012-01-11T10:18:37.731-08:002012-01-11T10:18:37.731-08:00A great idea to look at history from the perspecti...A great idea to look at history from the perspective of a working class woman, or many working class women. <br /><br />Your post makes me wonder what the Victorian sexual legacy is for us now. I've heard it said, for example, that the British teeheehee approach to sex is one of the factors behind our worryingly high teenage pregnancy rate. The Dutch, who have the lowest in Europe, are far less amused and coy about sex than we are. I wonder what Dutch sexual history tells us. Were the Victorians alone in Europe in their hypocritical prudishness? <br /><br />Thanks Judith. Interesting. <br /><br /><br />Cathy xAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post-38138754758996291372012-01-09T14:50:33.036-08:002012-01-09T14:50:33.036-08:00A very thought-provoking piece, Judith.A very thought-provoking piece, Judith.Emma Louise Oramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08730716658321304187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post-36316763976635892742012-01-05T01:27:15.511-08:002012-01-05T01:27:15.511-08:00The virgin cure first raised its head when syphili...The virgin cure first raised its head when syphilis became a problem in the 16th century. By the 19th century I am quite sure it had just become a viable excuse to deflower young girls:)<br />The Georgians were far more honest, enjoyed a wild old time didnt they? Much preferable to the high moral Victorian facade.Judith Arnopphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10734149908148034800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1547779935064982600.post-46895178634870239742012-01-04T04:12:30.759-08:002012-01-04T04:12:30.759-08:00The thing is, London as the sex capital of Europe ...The thing is, London as the sex capital of Europe in the 19th century wasn't a new phenomenon. It had also been the sex capital of Europe in the 18th century. And the many printings of Harris's List (the "phone book" for prostitutes) in the late 18th century is an eye-opener--tells you what you can get, for how much, and where--and copies have been found in the effects of many gentlemen...Sir Joshua Reynolds, for example. <br /><br />Also, the belief that syphilis could be cured by sex with a virgin shows its ugly head certainly by the mid-1750s. One of the early cases of the Bow Street Runners involved girls of eight being kidnapped for brothels at the request of well-heeled (infected) gentlemen. And Hogarth depicted scenes of childhood prostitution.<br /><br />But I think what's so creepy or unsavoury about the Victorians is their hypocrisy on the subject, their pretence, and the facade of piety. All cuddly church-going family men on the face of it, debauched sickos behind. And for hypocrisy, they've got the Georgians beat hands down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com