Was this a widespread attitude in the 19th century, or were the Arcadian Methodists particularly crazy?
goodness, this is the best laugh I’ve had all day!
Wait… you werent being serious, were you?
This can’t possibly be for real, right?
Could it be a hoax?
Now, I need to be explained, in small and concise words, how could this possibly be constructed as something to be avoided. :dubious:
Now, to the best of my knowledge, my parents have only “done the deed” twice. Once for conceiving me, another time to conceive my brother. For all I know, they followed that advice perfectly, as did my grandparents.
Mom and Dad sure liked to practice their rasslin’, though. Dad’s rasslin’ name was “God.”
Well I found it hilarious too. My favorite line: “She should let him grope in the dark. There is always the hope that he will stumble and incur some slight injury which she can use as an excuse to deny him sexual access.”
But it does seem real. It’s from a .edu. Maybe I should’ve put this in GQ.
The Snopes entry lists “undetermined” but if you go on to read the text, they point out anachronisms of language and other things that label it as most probably a humor piece.
This one’s definitely been around for a while - it’s probably been discussed on the boards too, though I don’t remember it, or know what conclusions were drawn.
But my immediate reaction has always been - come on guys of COURSE it’s fake. Or at least doctored heavily for a modern audience.
Not because of the assumptions about “nice girls don’t like that sort of thing” and “lie back and think of England” - that’s all very nineteenth century orthodox.
No, the reason it’s fake is it says the word “sex” loudly, unambiguously and without a trace of circumlocution or embarrassment. For a supposed Victorian piece it’s shockingly frank. It admits to the existance of oral sex and pornography. It even gives a brief description of what a man having sex might sound like (“huffing and puffing away”).
Oh, and there’s this too:
“Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands.”
Man! Of course everyone was wearing nightclothes, it’s the nineteenth century, they didn’t have central heating. They were probably wearing nightcaps and thick wooly stockings too. And the reference to “turning out the light” (rather than, say, blowing out the candle or snuffing the wick) is deeply suspicious too.
Fake, fake, fake, I say. Fakety fake from beginning to end.
Yeah, you’re right. It is obviously fake. However, I don’t understand about the nightclothes thing. I almost never have the heater on, and I don’t use a pyjamas.
You must have the constitution of a polar bear!
On the other hand, I’ve visited Denmark once and one thing that really struck me was the sound quality of housing insulation (I encountered my first ever triple-glazed window there). So maybe your houses stay toasty warm because you’re just really good at keeping the cold air out.
Still, I remember my days as a poor student in Edinburgh (which is probably warmer in winter than New York) - it would easily get down to 15 degrees Celcius or less in winter inside the flat. You bet I was wearing something to bed. And having two duvets and putting on a dressing gown and nice fluffy slippers when I got up too.
Modern construction and insulation to the rescue, maybe? What’s the temperature outside? Either you’ve got something heating your bedroom, or the heat is on in the daytime enough that it doesn’t fall to the outside temperature over the course of one night.
I second that need for explanation, but I’ve always been a bit thick, so I guess I’d need pictures to go along with it. And perhaps video. And 15-20 minutes of quiet study.
That seems to be the general theme of the article.
Damn, now I’m all hot and bothered.
- I am blind, apparently. *
Damn! another keyboard ruined:p
Clearly the Reverend L.D. Smythers was quite a lover.
“Blowing out the candle” and “Snuffing the wick” were too dirty for Victorians to say.