Titanic forum and community
Results 1 to 91 of 91

Women's Difficulties

This discussion on "Women's Difficulties" is in the Health Medicine and Hygiene section; I am sure the subject has been covered, but I can't find the thread - ...

      
   
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    511
    I am sure the subject has been covered, but I can't find the thread - would someone be so kind as to direct me?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    Lee- we have covered toilets and plumbing and underwear, Lydia Pinkham's medicinal compound and just about everything to do with hygiene- am not sure we ever touched on women's difficulties however. Er....what type of difficulties did you have in mind? I should say crawling into lifeboats and up sling rope ladders in hobble skirts would qualify!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    511
    Actually, this came up out of the urinating discussion...there must have been at least a few of the women in boats who were at "that time of the month" - I was wondering how you took care of such things under the circumstances.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    Well, there was a clumsy device, sold by Sears and other retail outlets, which looked like a combination garter belt/thong worn under the clothing which would have "taken care of" one aspect of that time of month. It would have made climbing a bit difficult, but as Shelley said, so too would have hobble skirts and corsets. There was a wide range of alcohol and opiate based nostrums to help through the physical symptoms, marketed at the time under names such as Mrs. Smiths 5-Day, which would probably have been in the bags of at least the first and second class women- so one can imagine that many of the women who were, in the terms of the day, "cursed" were probably slightly buzzed during the course of events. The immigrant women probably dealt with it in the "traditional" way which is a bit too graphic to go into here.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,645
    Disposable sanitary pads were first came out around the 1910s, which were used with the belts, as Jim said. These belts were in common use up until the early 1970s, when adhesive pads came out.

    The tampon was introduced by Tampax in 1936.

    Before pads and tampons were available, women used rags, which were laundered and re-used.

    More than you all wanted to know, I'm sure

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    And coping with the physical symptoms- the text of an authentic ad:

    THE WONDER OF THE AGE
    WOMEN DO NOT SUFFER SO Brown's Cure will cure you. If you have any of these symptoms take this remedy at once and be cured: Nausea and bad taste in the mouth, sore feeling in the lower part of the bowels, an unusual discharge, impared general health, feelings of langour, sharp pain in the region of kidneys, backache, dull pain in small of back, pain in passing water, bearing down feeling, a dragging sensation in the groin, courses irregular, a timid nervous and restless feeling, a dread of some impending evil, wayward and irritable temper, a feeling of fullness, sparks before the eyes, gait unsteady, pain in the womb, swelling in front, pain in the breastbone, pain when courses occur, hysterics, temples and ears throb, sleep short and distorted,impared digestion,headache, trouble with sight or hearing, dizziness, morbid feeling and the blues,palpitation of the heart, nerves weak and sensitive, appetite poor, a craving for unnatural food,spirits depressed, nervous dyspeptic symptoms, a heavy feeling and pain in the back upon exertion, fainting spells, habitual constipation, cold extremeties IF YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE SYMPTOMS SEND TO US FOR BROWN'S CURE AND BE CURED AT ONCE. THOUSANDS HAVE BEEN CURED WHO HAVE CONSIDERED THEIR CASES INCURABLE. 6 BOTTLES WILL CURE ANY CASE OF FEMALE WEAKNESS.

    The range of ingredients in these "cure alls" was amazing. Some were herbal and likely harmless, others contained laudanum (tincture of opium) or paregoric along with high doses of alcohol.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    4,566
    In 1896. Lizzie Borden refered to this "condition" as "having fleas"- the gentlemen blushed and the subject was changed. I expect there was nothing to be done in a lifeboat except to do what women have done for ages and in all calamities- carry on.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    295
    The most unmentionable of unmentionables! Of course there should be no shame regarding this most natural episode that was at the forefront of many a woman's mind under normal circumstance; let alone a disaster.

    Sears 1902 offered "The Venus or Sanitary Protector." for 47 cents; which was a rubber contraption (much like the typical belted variety)in which "...readily admits a napkin or any other soft substance like cheesecloth or cotton, and will hold it securely in the proper position." Makes no mention of the effectivness of said product!

    Now, some corset advertisements have a tell-tale tab in front, which might have held a napkin, or "serviette" as they might also been called. Safety pins were invented for these purposes I believe (thankfully!). In fact, "safety" and "sanitary" were words most used is describing these articles.

    I have seen advertisements for the disposable "Kotex" products beginning 1925 (possibly before?) or so; around the time of "Kleenex". I have heard that the disposable paper products came about during WWI in relation to filters for soldier's gas masks. After the war, this substance was put to...other uses. Before that, cloth items were disposed or washed as discretly as possible.

    Also in Sears was a whole page devoted to "syringes"...but I'll let someone else pick up on that one!

    I should add, that the next page of the catalogue, after the "Venus", was an array of "belts" for men's hernia problems! So ladies, do not think I am unsympathetic to the trials of womankind!

    Kris

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,350
    All,

    Time to name names. Contrary to beliefs that Mrs. Baxter was experiencing sea-sickness ... she was actually at that time having ... a "womanly problem". I'll have to dig up where I got it from, but I think it was from Dr Frauenthal's account. He mentioned a few medical situations that arose over the rescue. He didn't mention Mrs. Baxter by name, but one can guess it was her. Now, I'm not sure if he were referring to that time of the month, or at her age - 50, perhaps menopause (did I even spell that right?) was the situation.

    Daniel.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    99
    What an interesting thread!
    Something else to think about...Sometimes, stress can play a big factor in it. It can speed you up or slow you down. Some of the ladies that might not have been "expecting" it, may have gotten it anyway. Some ladies that were suppose to get it...may not have. This may be TMI, but I can only imagine that a least a lady or two may have hoped and prayed that they were "Enciente" when there "visitor" didn't show up (You can only imagine after losing your Husband) Does anyone know if any of the ladies came away Enciente ? Mrs. Astor was already pregnant when she boarded.



  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,350
    Kate Phillips (2nd class) apparently conceived on board. I think so did the Bishops (1st class). There was a thread a few years ago about babies born after the disaster, there weren't too many. Perhaps someone can find the thread or repeat the information?

    Daniel.

  12. #12
    Marykate Viola
    Guest
    You people think of everything don't you?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    511
    Just go over to the toilet paper thread, Marykate. That'll larn ya!

  14. #14
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    The day of age back then with out small inserters and minni sanity pads.Have no idea how they cope!

    My mother in the yearly 1960's had big belts to hold there sanity pads inside,i can't imagine 50 years yearlier what they used.When women go visiting, how do they transport there sanity pads?They don't have luxury what we have today.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Witney
    Posts
    726
    At the risk of contributing "too much information", in earlier years women had often used old bits of rag, though sanitary accoutrements had been introduced by 1912, this advertisement being just a few years later than the Titanic.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    Also...you did not leave the house during 'that time' if you could afford not to. One took to the couch, with the swoon bottle, and offered vague excuses about "Madame being indisposed."

    One could, and did, roll up and insert rags. One also wore what would one day be called 'panties' and over them layered multi-levels of slips and underskirts to prevent embarrassing bleed-thru.

    One had a HUGE selection of patent medicines designed to ease or eliminate the symptoms. Not to be confused with 'regulators,' which were patent medicines that restored one's regular period...ie caused one to miscarry in the early stages by doses of substances like Ergotrate or Tansy.

    Which makes me laugh when I see "Country Kitchen" type restaurants that try to give a Quainte Olde Fashionede Feele to the premises by using either vintage trade cards or that ghastly "Advert Pattern" wallpaper...many of the Quainte Olde Productse featured therein are either narcotics meant to knock you out during The Time Of The Curse, or abortifacients. I'm a barrel of laughs in such settings, as I interpret the wallpaper for my always enthraled date.

  17. #17
    George L. Lorton
    Guest

    I'm a barrel of laughs in such settings, as I interpret the wallpaper for my always enthralled date.
    I bet you are at that, Mr Jim.

    If I was a lady back then I'd pray to be a lite bleeder or Marry me a rich fella so I didn't have to be up or out and about. Madame is indisposed indeed and doesn't want to be disturbed unless you want a dose of a shrew's tongue.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    I think the only thing worse than that in that time period was a couple hundred years before when poor women had to hang their uh... used rags... outside to dry where all the neighbours could see!

    Now THAT would be embarrassing!!!

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    One REALLY begins to see this topic covered, in almost excruciating, detail, as the 1920s progressed. Adverts showed pretty flapper-types, in form fitting white gauze-over-fabric skirts that ended above the knee. No room for multiple layers of slip, and underskirt. The subtext of that image would have been lost on most men, but not on the women at whom these ads were targeted.


    But, what was milady to do in a world of mostly male pharmacists and grocers? Women were reluctant to...more or less...announce in public "I'm having my period" or "I need a dress shield" in front of an entire line of customers, to a male staff member.

    Kotex instituted an 'honor box' system, in which a cash box was built into a free-standing display. One dropped some quarters in, took one's Kotex product, and left without having had to talk with anyone at all.

    Other companies used the 'silent coupon' method:

    View Image

    but it remained a sales hinderance until self-serve chain stores began killing off neighborhood grocers and old-style pharmacies after about 1927.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Were the pad and the tampon invented before the first World War? Dress silhouettes appear, to me, to be slenderer and slenderer from 1911-12 onward. Perhaps the new, less padded and petticoat styles, made the pad and tampon necessities.
    In the depression, my mother and her sisters used rags. I did too in the '60's - my brother's old baby diapers - below the pad during heavy days.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Oops! Just noticed Tracy had answered my question.
    As for poor women being embarassed hanging out their 'rags' a couple of centuries ago: I don't think it bothered them. The lower classes knew about sex, periods and other facts of life and were not embarassed discussing and joking about them. The upper classes knew, but did not openly discuss or printed those facts. They saved them for the Regency and Victorian equivalents of locker room or girl talk.

  22. #22
    George L. Lorton
    Guest

    But, what was milady to do in a world of mostly male pharmacists and grocers? Women were reluctant to...more or less...announce in public "I'm having my period" or "I need a dress shield" in front of an entire line of customers, to a male staff member.
    What indeed?

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Witney
    Posts
    726
    I think commercial, mass-produced sanitary products were first introduced - and mass marketed - in the 1890s, or thereabouts. However, ordinary working class women, particularly the rural poor who lived far from shops, would have continued to use whatever was available in the way of old rags.

  24. #24
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Actually women don't really need sanity wear,these days you have procedures to stop event the period happening.

    This is for what George l lorton Quoted (i still don't know how to quote yet lol).

    These days there's so many lady check out chicks but when i have to by my sanity wear, i always get stuck with a male chick out kid.
    It's embrassing!

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Actually, Alyson, no, that's incorrect. I've used the type of birth-control your talking about, and while it does tend to stop your period for a few months, you are under no circumstances supposed to use it on a continual basis. You should at least have one period every few months at risk of serious damage to your ovaries. So yes, at least some sanitary wear is still required.

  26. #26
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    I think were talking about different ones here!I have been natural all my life but my brother's g/f has one.once it is place in,you have freedom if you are getting my hint.when you decide to have babies you get it taken out.it's not perfect though,if it does move out of place it does not work probelry.YES i know you should have an natural period each month,i learnt that when i first got it.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Ok, I know the exact one your talking about for sure now, and its very dangerous to use. My own doctor highly advised against it - its not natural to not have a period at all, and it can cause serious damage to your body.

    I'm just waiting for the news report that thousands of young women are sterile or having extreme health problems because of it.

  28. #28
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat-Yes i agree with you 100%.I'm with you,i would never get it for myself either. It makes me sink just thinking about having something shoved in side you.I also believe that alot of ladies are going to have trouble in later years,apart from you and i and my sis lol.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    Sounds like you ladies talking about interuterine devices.

    I'd be very careful with those things were I in your shoes. They aren't always that incredibly reliable and some...such as the notorious Dalkan Shield...have been known to cause some pretty severe damage.

  30. #30
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Yes,i will be careful that's why i'm never getting it done. There is a limit that the human body can take, and i think that's going to far.But there is a-lot using this product!

    It's safer to use the old fashion sanity wear lol.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>It's safer to use the old fashion sanity wear lol.<<

    I think were talking past each other on some level. Sanitary napkins, tampons and the like merely absorb menstural blood whereas an IUD is a contraceptive device which is physically inserted inside the uterus. Nobody can quite explain how they work, although I suspect that the appliance tends to irritate the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized ova from emplanting.

    While most have been used with little or no real ill effects, the Dalkon Shield was not only damaging, it was even deadly. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkon_Shield for a summary of the whole sad story.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Absolutely Michael - that's what we're arguing for 100%.

    I think this generation is going to end up as Guinea Pigs for that and several of the other new birth controls (specifically the new one being given in schools to help prevent cervical cancer as a 'bonus'), and we will have another disaster like there was with the anti-morning sickness pills a couple decades ago.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    If scientific methodology is used properly in any of the studies and clinical trials, most of what comes out should be reasonably safe. The problem comes when the science is shoved into the back seat in favour of the bottom line. With the Dalkon Shield, that was exactly what happened.

    I suppose it's better then some so-called contraceptives. In ancient Egypt, women were known to use a concoction which had crocodile dung as the main ingredient.

    Guess where this stuff was "stuffed!"

    Kind of makes me wonder how many deaths happened from sepsis.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    "Guess where this stuff was "stuffed!""

    Oooh, not to sure I want too!

    You think that is horrifying! Here is the top 10!

    http://www.cracked.com/article_16039...aceptives.html

  35. #35
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    That's right kat. 100% natural for me,well i am actually anyways.

    Michael. What do mean talking past each other?does it mean we are talking about the same thing?

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Michael. What do mean talking past each other?<<

    In this context, it means I wasn't sure we were talking about the same thing.

    >>Oooh, not to sure I want too! <<

    Let's just say it was an obvious avenue of ingress for the infections which would likely result, to the point where the lady trying to avoid being a mommy would instead need to become a mummy!

    If nothing else, any such lady who after using this stuff who would make me an offer would get the response: "Not tonight. I've got a headache!"

    Not the sort of response one expects from a guy, I know, but I think you can understand my reasoning behind this.

    >>You think that is horrifying! Here is the top 10!<<

    Pretty scary stuff there, especially that concoction with the murcury. I noticed the one I mentioned was Number 9 on the list.

    Diaphrams of opium? Lovely! I wonder what anybody did about the corpse once this stuff was absorbed?

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    "Pretty scary stuff there, especially that concoction with the murcury. I noticed the one I mentioned was Number 9 on the list."

    Yes, I noticed that straight away! It was actually ironic, I was reading that completely off topic, and then I saw your post and had to link it! There were some pretty disgusting remedies for the birthing process, as well. I remember distinctly being told about dung and honey being VERY popular in ancient Greece! Of course these were also the people who invented the theory of the wandering uterus, so I'm not surprised. The scary part is, I'm positive that's not even close to the worst!

    "Not the sort of response one expects from a guy, I know, but I think you can understand my reasoning behind this."

    Completely - in fact, I think it renewed my faith in male-kind! Good to know there's at least SOME limits! :P

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>The scary part is, I'm positive that's not even close to the worst! <<

    I'm certain it isn't. Some cultures invented things designed to kill sexual desire. India had some noxious concoction made out of camphor which was supposed to be applied to the male "equipment."

    I don't even want to think about the chemical burns in that particular spot! As an an-aphrodesiac, I'm betting it's effectiveness was 1,000,000,000,000%

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Ooh - I'm not even a man, and I feel your pain!

    The sad part is things like this are all too often going on even today. In third world countries over 20 million women have had their clitoris' forcibly removed to reduce their sexual pleasure to ensure they won't cheat on their husbands, and we're supposed to be most civilized today then we were a thousand years ago. Hell, I bet even cave men didn't do that to their women, pre-fire. I love our so called 'advanced civilization'.

  40. #40
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat. I would love the cave men era!everything natural. It's the way to go!

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    If rape, pillaging and fighting for survival is the way to go for you, then by all means... For the rest of the world, we wouldn't last 5 seconds, and probably wouldn't even want to.

  42. #42
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Back in those days there's no such thing as rape!it was called nature.It's better than how we are torching our bodies in todays world. But every one for them selves

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Uh... no offense, Alyson, but I think you seriously need to do some more reading on the subject if you think there was no rape in pre-historic times. A great deal of life involved tribal warfare, which usually resulted in the losing sides' men being killed, and their women dragged off and used for breeding and as slaves. For as long as there has been sex, there has been rape - I guarantee you that. Up until less than a century ago, rape itself was considered spoils of war and has been for Millennias.

  44. #44
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    No other animals have rape laws!I'm talking about cave men.

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Witney
    Posts
    726
    It depends upon what period, and what societies we are talking about. The Christian west certainly had laws against rape, and indeed every other form of sexual offence including fornication and bigamy. Rape was taboo, even during times of war - when it was considered that occupying armies had a clear duty to protect the populations under their control. This was all part of the knightly code by which Western armies were (and still are) regulated.

  46. #46
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    I was talking about cavemen that could not even speak an language yet,in there days there was no such thing as rape.

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,516
    I'm sure homo sapiens cavemen could talk. Not maybe quite as we do, but they had to cooperate, and ultimately make the decision to begin agriculture, and they painted their caves, so I think they must have been quite the chatterboxes. In any case, from what we know, their brains and voicebox structures were the same as ours, so they weren't very different. They just didn't have 10,000 years of progress - abandoning hunter-gathering, cooperation, developing technology, wars etc. - under their belts. If you could adopt a caveman baby and bring it up now, you might find it fitted in surprisingly well. Maybe a bit on the hairy side and fairly burly, but quite competent in the intelligence and language department, and not really visibly strange if dressed in low-slung jeans and clutching a mobile. They stayed 'uncivilised' for so long partly because there weren't that many of them. In primitive societies, everyone has to hunt and gather, which doesn't allow much opportunity for some genius to be left in peace/encouraged to gaze into space thinking about the wheel etc. You need larger and more specialised societies for that, where subsistence won't collapse if some people devote themselves to more cerebral occupations with an eye to the future, instead of dinner. Which, of course, is what ultimately happened.

    And sad to say, Alyson, if you fancy the caveman 'naturalistic' approach to sex, even at your age of 27, you'd have been way over the hill and probably quite safe (or ignored, depending on your viewpoint). Their average life expectancy seems to have been about 30 (though I'm not quite sure how the experts know this for certain, given the relatively few skeletons extant from this era).

    And personally, whatever problems we face in the 21st Century, I wouldn't swap my life as it has been for anything preceding it. Cold, verminous, diseased, childbirth/child mortality, superstitious ignorance, incomprehension, fear etc. I'm sure they had wonderful community moments that we don't, but overall, I'm happier with science, hygiene, antibiotics, modern communications, and technology. I just might have preferred to have been born 2 or 3 decades earlier than I was, but that's fairly meaningless in terms of civilisation, and is probably based on a sentimental view of my parents' generation anyway.

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    >No other animals have rape laws!

    Uhhhh...do other 'animals' have ANY laws, in the legal sense?

  49. #49
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Goodness this topic reminds me of Rae Dawn Chong in "Quest for Fire". A little known movie from the 80's about Cavemen and Women and the search for fire and just how rough a cave woman had it, particularly one woman.

  50. #50
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_(film) Cut and Paste into browser.

  51. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    I saw that movie in school, George! Very informative - if sad.

    And yes, Monica, cavemen would be able to fit in very well in this time period if given the opportunity, though they would get some weird looks. In fact, the neanderthal brain was actually a great deal larger than the homosapien's (our own) and if given the right setting, could likely put any one of us in the dust in terms of intelligence.

    And Alyson, rape is also incredibly common among animals, as well. Lions for example. When a female lion is raising cubs and doesn't want to mate with the alpha male of the pride, often the male will kill the cubs and rape the mother. So much for your theory about the animal kingdom.

    And Stanley, yes, while their were laws against rape in society, they weren't necessarily followed. It was mainly exclusive to your OWN people that that was the case. I suggest you check out a book called 'against our will'. It's about rape throughout the history of war. In fact, if you just randomly look it up, rape has been considered a part of conquering for as far back as war has commenced. It's about power - rarely sex.

  52. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,869
    The latest analyses of average Neanderthal brain size (or rather the inside measurements of the cranium), using larger samples, suggest that the Neanderthal brain was typically smaller than that of Homo sapiens. Besides, the external dimensions of a brain tell us little compared with the surface area of the cerebral cortex, which varies with the level of convolution. The best indication of which species was more intelligent is which emerged on top, and that's us. But it could also mean that we weren't more intelligent - just more aggressive.

  53. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    I respectfully disagree, Bob. There are a few archeologists who have been trying to perpetuate the theory that Homosapiens have the larger brain, but in fact it is the Neanderthal. Their explanation for this is that they had bigger heads, but not as much filling it - something fairly ridiculous in my opinion. The general archeological community agrees that the adult Neanderthal brain capacity was quite a bit larger than the current Homosapiens, something concurred by a teacher who I have remained in relative contact with who did a lecture on it in my school, has taught at various Universities on the subject of prehistoric man, and who has two sons who are archeologists studying the field.

    While there is more than one person studying something, inevitably there will be differing opinions on it, but the lone holdouts have very little evidence to back their theories as no brain tissue survives to confirm their theory. The majority of these opinions also surfaced in the 30's and when the historical community was more unwilling to accept that cavemen could have had higher intelligence than our entire civilization. While in the past EARLY Homosapiens indeed did have larger brain capacities, it has dwindled extensively since then, and our current brains for the last few million years have been a great deal smaller than that of the Neanderthal. Likely none the less efficient, but still smaller (I remember a figure of 10-20% somewhere in the back of my mind).

    Here is an article on the matter :

    http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...anderthal.html

  54. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,869
    It doesn't matter, Kat, because it's irrelevant. The average male human brain is larger than the average female brain, but any man who thinks that significant would hardly be demonstrating a higher level of intelligence.

  55. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Very true. I guess we should just shake hands and agree to disagree?

  56. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,869
    Sure, no worries. :-)

  57. #57
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Hi Kat,

    I saw that movie in school, George! Very informative - if sad.
    Did you know it was based on a French Novel written in 1911.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire

    Yes the Movie was sad. My Brother and I were watching it on HBO back in the 80's when my Mom came home and made us change the channel. Seems her and my sister saw it and she didn't want us watching it. Well, anyways I never got to see the end of it. Never really wanted to. But it's a good movie!

  58. #58
    George L. Lorton
    Guest

    In fact, if you just randomly look it up, rape has been considered a part of conquering for as far back as war has commenced. It's about power - rarely sex.
    Very true, if unfortunate! It's true also what you were saying about the lions too, Kat.

    Often in the days of old (High Middle Ages is what I've studied) if was common to steal a woman or rape her during the hundred years war, especially if she was not of the nobility.

    Unfortunately if a child resulted 9 months later the said infant usually ended up on the church step or in a ditch, left in the woods. Of course society was very different back then.

  59. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,869
    It was not uncommon in the Middle Ages for animals to be put on trial, found guilty (presumably not by a jury of their peers) and punished for crimes like criminal damage, theft and murder. The defendants were generally domestic animals, and records show that pigs were the most likely to have criminal records. As there were no animal prisons most of the guilty were executed by hanging. Some with good lawyers got away with banishment from the community, but none were ever sentenced to a fine. Can't say I've ever heard of any livestock collared for rape, but 'witch's familiars' (generally cats) were sometimes involved in bestiality charges, which were generally a frame-up. I'm not making this up!

  60. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    >>"Can't say I've ever heard of any livestock collared for rape"<<

    Go read any story from Greek History - although I do question the validity of these! :P

    >>"Often in the days of old (High Middle Ages is what I've studied) if was common to steal a woman or rape her during the hundred years war, especially if she was not of the nobility."<<

    Oh yes, this is the case in wars for pretty much all of history. Look at the ancient Greeks. Blatant historical and literary inaccuracies aside, Troy had it right on the money when they said rape the women and throw the babies from the walls. Homer wrote about it in the Illiad because it was a fact of life - women were a part of the spoils of war, just like gold and jewels.

    This went on all the way up to this century. Thousands and millions of women were captured and kept as 'comfort women', aka - sex slaves. Here's a quote from an article in the New York Times about them.

    "These were not commercial brothels. Force, explicit and implicit, was used in recruiting these women. What went on in them was serial rape, not prostitution. The Japanese Armyís involvement is documented in the governmentís own defense files. A senior Tokyo official more or less apologized for this horrific crime in 1993... Yesterday, he grudgingly acknowledged the 1993 quasi apology, but only as part of a pre-emptive declaration that his government would reject the call, now pending in the United States Congress, for an official apology. America isnít the only country interested in seeing Japan belatedly accept full responsibility. Korea, China, and the Philippines are also infuriated by years of Japanese equivocations over the issue."

    And a direct quote from a soldier:

    "The same day, veteran soldier Yasuji Kaneko admitted to The Washington Post that the women "cried out, but it didn't matter to us whether the women lived or died. We were the emperor's soldiers. Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance.""

    And yes, Quest for Fire is definitely a good movie if you have any kind of inclination towards that kind of thing. Personally, I love the past. Can't say the same thing for my entire history class who were 5 seconds away from blowing their brains out, but I enjoyed it!!!

  61. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    6,085
    >As there were no animal prisons most of the guilty were executed by hanging.

    The latest example of animal capital pcunishment I can find in the US dates to 1903.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)

  62. #62
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat. Yes i know but there is no law in the lion animal kingdom for rape. Do you ever see a male lion going to jail?

    Cave men had no laws about bashing women over the head in there days , you know why cause there was no such thing as rape laws.

    I do agree with you there was rape long long time ago but there was no punsihment for rape.

  63. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Yes, because there were no laws pre-history. We're not arguing about laws, we're arguing that it did (and does) frequently happen, a fact that you seemed to be refuting in your posts.

  64. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,869
    Sounds like a stitch-up, Jim. No trial, no judge, no jury, no plea bargaining. With due process and a good lawyer pleading diminished responsibility, Topsy could have escaped the chair and got off with a custodial sentence, eligible for parole in a couple of years maybe, and then settled down to a productive life.

  65. #65
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat- i thought you were saying that there were laws in cavemen years!lol. I never said that rape did not happen, i stated it was a part of life back then meanning that i knew that there was rape long long time ago.So i agree with you that rape has been happening since men have been on earth.

  66. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>I was talking about cavemen that could not even speak an language yet,in there days there was no such thing as rape.<<

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. These would have been nomadic tribal cultures and even if they didn't have laws in the sense that we would understand, they would certainly have had some pretty strong taboos in place. The penalty for infractions would have either been summary execution or banishment from the tribe which would effectively be a death sentence.

  67. #67
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Hi Michael,I see differently.Humans are classed as animals back then (Homosapians) and we were not even civilized in those days.
    Animals in the wild do rape,and don't get punished at all,that's how humans (Homosapians) were at that time.
    Rape was rape when we us humans became civilized.

  68. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Hi Michael,I see differently.Humans are classed as animals back then (Homosapians) and we were not even civilized in those days.<<

    Niether are a lot of the tribal cultures which exist to this day, but watch what happens to anybody who engages in anti-social behaviour. This isn't an issue of laws in the sense that we understand, nor is it a question of being "civilized." It is a question of group survival and any individual who threatens that or the order upon which they depend for their very survival.

    >>Animals in the wild do rape,and don't get punished at all,that's how humans (Homosapians) were at that time.<<

    And you know this...how?

  69. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Alyson, not to be offensive, but that is utterly ridiculous. Rape has ALWAYS been classified as wrong for as long as pre-historic man has existed. Just because there weren't any laws written in stone, if you did it, at the VERY least it was frowned upon. And never have homosapiens been classified as animals. We are called homosapiens because that is what we are. Hence why we're not called gorillas or dingos interchangeably.

    What your trying to say is that if you got sent back a million years into the past and were horribly and brutally violated by cavemen, you would say no worries and go about your day like nothing happened because they didn't have ipods so it doesn't count? It's both ridiculous and preposterous! Rape is involuntary sexual violation on a persons body, and just because they didn't have books and teachings doesn't change that fact. And that doesn't change that fact that it would be a (highly!) punishable act among one's own tribe, and territorial possession from another tribe. It's the same thing as saying murder wasn't murder until someone wrote it was wrong! Do you think you could just go around bashing people's heads open and no one would get pissed off? No! At the very least they would kick you out of the tribe and as Michael said, leave you to die! If anything, rape could be considered a worse offense! This was LONG before birth control, and there was no means of proving paternity, so a guy's going to be pissed off if your messing around with his wife! That was the biggest reason that being a virgin was a pre-requisite for getting a husband, and why female fidelity was so insisted upon up until as little as 50 years ago! No man wanted to risk raising a baby that wasn't his!

    And that's only barely scratching the surface!

  70. #70
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    >>Niether are a lot of the tribal cultures which exist to this day, but watch what happens to anybody who engages in anti-social behaviour.<<

    And you know this...how?

    How i know about animals rape, sometimes i watch Animal planet(i love Animals).

    I have seen in one culture in an African country (not African though)men come up behind the women and snatch them from behind to proceed for mating purposes.

    I think i seen something about those tribes you're talking about. i saw in the newspaper about people that never been in contact with civilizaion before,but i don't know nothing about them. Like i said i only seen it in the newspaper.
    I hope i was not to rude to you. I'll let you know this, i know i'm underneith you and i know you're in charge of this converstion, so i'm on my knees now. I was just stating my own opinion.
    I never try an challenge you Michael,you're like a boss man and i'm like a person that like to talk.

  71. #71
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Kat, yeah the Quest For Fire can be sleeper if History isn't your bag.

    Everyone,

    That was the biggest reason that being a virgin was a pre-requisite for getting a husband, and why female fidelity was so insisted upon up until as little as 50 years ago! No man wanted to risk raising a baby that wasn't his!
    True Kat, this ties into my Rape at a genetic level theory.

    Rape is wrong at may levels but I was thinking of the genetic level. My loopy brain. The things it comes up with. The reason being that Women and Men are looking for a lot of things genetically in a partner subconsiously. Traits that they might be hoping to pass on to their children. When a Woman was raped in the days of old she was also being raped genetically when you consider the fact that she might became pregnant. She was forced then to accept an outsider's genetic mingling with her own. God only knew what she was going to get. Then she was forced to rear that child and the said child in many cases was exposed to ridicule for being the product of rape either by the Mother in some cases or society at large. Hence the child who is the product of the rape becomes a victim as well. One of my theories. It kind fits this topic but not really.

  72. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>And you know this...how?<<

    I've read studies and articles in scientific literature dealing with the behaviour of human tribal cultures in the Pacific and in the Amazon basin were a lot of such cultures survive and (Argueably) even thrive. Micheal Shermer for example, has written on this in a number of his own books, the latest of which is "The Mind Of The Market."

    The lynchpin here is the survival and well being of the group or tribe in which threats from within are treated as severely as those from without.

    >>I never try an challenge you Michael,you're like a boss man and i'm like a person that like to talk.<<

    Uhhhhh...as a moderator, my function is to see to the smooth operation of the forum and to make sure that the rules of the board are complied with. That doesn't mean that my viewpoints are immune to criticism or rebuttal from people with differing views. (See Jim Kalafus responses to my own and the views of others on Ismay's conduct and targeting by the contemporary media.)

    I don't mind this. I'm not always right...nobody is...and I've learned things this way as well as gained insights that I've never had before. I've even been known to revise or change my own opinions over the years because of that.

  73. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Bastards didn't get a fair deal either. They could not inherit their father's estate. Even Henry VIII, masterful though he was at disinheriting and un-disinheriting his children, could not make his son by Bess Blount heir to his throne - not unless said son married his half-sister, Princess Mary, which was incest. Duke of Richmond was the highest rank he could give Henry Fitzroy.
    There was shame in having a pregnant single woman at home. Employers tossed their unwed pregnant maids into the snow. Fathers did the same with their daughters, unless she was hidden with distant relations to have her baby out of sight of the neighbours. It probably didn't matter if the girl had been raped.

  74. #74
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Hi Marilyn,

    I concur with what you said and wish I'd made that analogy myself. I didn't know you are also a Tudorian. Henry was playing with the idea of naming Henry Fitzroy as his heir and there were precedents if you consider William The Conqueror Duke Of Normandy. (Fitzroy means son of the king and Henry Fitzroy isn't the first royal bastard to be called such). But it was a tough go because Henry Fitzroy as Marilyn has pointed out wasn't legitimate and hence his claim was as weak as Mary's because she was a girl.

    The last time England was to be ruled by a woman was when the White Ship disaster carried off Henry I son and heir William The Atheling leaving him with only one legitimate Daughter Matilda, whom was at that time (1123-25) living in Germany as the widow of the Holy Roman Emperor. Henry dragged her back from Germany and made her marry Geoffrey the son of the Count Of Anjou. He was 14, she 25. Alas it was all in vain even though Matilda did became the Mother of a son, Henry Fitz Empress the English would not except being ruled by a woman leaving Stephen Of Blois free to usurp his cousin's Matilda's crown and giving England 19 years of anarchy while they fought of it. Henry VIII was trying to avid such a thing happening and then he cast his eyes on Anne Boleyn which changed his plans entirely.

  75. #75
    George L. Lorton
    Guest

    Employers tossed their unwed pregnant maids into the snow. Fathers did the same with their daughters, unless she was hidden with distant relations to have her baby out of sight of the neighbours. It probably didn't matter if the girl had been raped.
    Yes in some cases the result was the same. The Girls sent away to be hidden. Or tossed out to starve.

  76. #76
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    >>The lynchpin here is the survival and well being of the group or tribe in which threats from within are treated as severely as those from without.<<

    Yes true, but the punsihment was like a slap on the hand compared to todays world. Those tribes of people are animals. They think like animals and act like animals.They have never been in contact with the outside world.

  77. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    No, Alyson, punishment would be DEATH! As Michael and I have already said many times, the punishment would likely being cast out of the tribe and left to fend for yourself! In that situation, unless you had magical powers, you were screwed. Now you rape someone, you go to prison for about a decade with good behavior where your given free room and board, air conditioning, three square meals a day, cable TV and a college education! Living better than 60% of the worlds population is something I would hardly call a punishment! Back then, it was ostracision and death. Somehow, I think the cavemen had it right.

    And for the last time, cavemen were caveMEN NOT animals! Animals didn't invent the wheel, or figure out how to make fire, or draw on walls, or make bowls and all the other things that THEY created so that YOU could use! I wouldn't be so fast to sit on your pedestal and judge when without them you wouldn't even exist, let alone have all the creature comforts you are looking down upon them for not having. I don't know how you can possibly come to the conclusion that cavemen were animals other than the fact you need to do at least some basic research on the subject before forming the opinions you hold to so strongly. And I cannot for the life of me understand why you would say

    >>They have never been in contact with the outside world.<<

    They WERE the outside world! Did you expect them to just mosey on down to Ikea and pick up lawn furniture?! They were a primitive people fighting for survival!

    They formed the very basis of society as we know it, making things that we use everyday! Not to bad for a bunch of stupid animals, huh?

  78. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    George, I agree with your theories completely, and it fits in very well with many existing theories. Another big thing for cavemen was natural selection. Have you ever wondered why rich guys go for the young pretty girls, and why young pretty girls go for old men with fat wallets??? (Aka - the Astors!)

    The theory is that it is genetically programmed into us since our cavemen days, when men and women were pairing themselves off for beneficial reasons. Women went after the strongest, most powerful male of the pack to provide food, shelter and protection for herself and her young, and men went after the most visibly pleasing women to bear their off-spring, and ensure their line continued. In the case of cavemen, that probably meant big boned women with child bearing hips, but back then that was the ideal.

    And yes Marilyn, that was the unfortunate case of many young women from that time period. On the other hand, I once read somewhere that in that time period, if a virgin was raped (and probably did not result in pregnancy), then she was still considered one afterwards. I guess it depended on the time period and how picky your husband was, but I guess there was at least some small glimmer of hope for the poor women.

    One famous example of a raped woman being shipped off to have her baby was by Elizabeth Bathory! She herself had a baby by a peasant born before she was married and was shipped off to have it in a secret location, and later when a peasant woman who lived on the land's very young daughter was raped and became pregnant, she helped mother and daughter, and had the daughter smuggled away to have the baby to hide her from the prying (and dangerous) eyes of others in her village. Something pretty kind for a woman who bathed in the blood of virgins! I guess she could relate.

  79. #79
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Hi Kat,

    (Aka - the Astors!)
    The Astors indeed! As for rape in Medieval England supposedly during the 11 to 12th centuries if a woman wasn't a virgin and was raped she couldn't bring charges. Another law held that if a Virgin didn't get pregnant from rape that meant that in the medieval mind set she did not have a climax and then she was considered an unwilling partner where if she did become pregnant that meant she must of climaxed and hence she must be lying for her own selfish and vexatious womanly reasons. I tell you if I was a woman back then I'd be in the nunnery so fast it would make your head spin. If I was the father of one I'd probably be taking the law into my own hands if something like that happened to my daughter. It was what a lot of fathers and the male kinfolk ended up doing in the end. So I'm very happy to be in the 21st Century.

    I'm also surprised about Elizabeth Bathory helping that peasant girl but not really like you said Kat she probably did relate and she was a very complex woman.

  80. #80
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat- Caveman are animals, and so are modern humans are animals ,even to this day we are animals,but very smart animals.And kat ,If humans are not Animals what are we then Aliens from another planet? Please don't bother answering my post,cause i am not going to answer you at all.
    Oh yeah Kat ,you're an animal aswell like the rest of us are!

  81. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Alyson, I will say it one more time, and only one more time. Humans are not animals...

    Both humans and animals happen to be mammals, and granted some humans deserve to be termed animals, but we are not, nor have we even been animals.

    I'm sorry if I have offended you, but it is the truth. Perhaps we should just leave this to rest, and stop the bickering.

  82. #82
    Alyson Jones
    Guest
    Kat-Ok. i said i won't talk to you anymore but you spoke nicly,so i am.

    Every living creature on this planet (minus the trees and fish and all that) are animals. In you're eyes we are not. I can believe in what i want and you can believe in want you want.

    We are warm blooded like the rest of the animal Kingdom,so mammals or animals either!

    Yes i agree. I won't come on this thread for a while, so we can just cum down. Regards

  83. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Hi George!

    Thanks for that elaboration! I'm always happy to learn something new (even if it differs on something I've previously believed! Actually, I think it's even better! ).

    I've done some fairly extensive research on Bathory actually, and very complex doesn't even begin to describe that woman! I could write a book just off of things I can remember off of the top of my head. I think I have an unnatural obsession with quite a few historical figures. I can't help it though, their just so fascinating! I think part of the intrigue is that we will never be able to say anything about them for certain - it's always open to interpretation, and we'll never be able to truly understand it all! It's a blessing and a curse...

    Oh, and I noticed that you deleted a post on our Titanic movie page. Re-thinking my casting??? lol

  84. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Yes true, but the punsihment was like a slap on the hand compared to todays world.<<

    Summery execution or banishment, which would effectively be a death sentence was hardly a slap on the wrist, and there was no appeals process either. The execution was carried out automatically and without pity or hesitation.

    >>Those tribes of people are animals. They think like animals and act like animals.<<

    Actually, they have some quite sophisticated behaviours. They have social organizations, and hierarchies, have rich oral histories, they're tool makers, builders, problem solvers, and the like much as we supposedly "civilized" people are. They also have some very deeply rooted religious belief systems and there is archeaological evidence that religious belief systems go back a long way. The case can be made for Peking Man as far as 500,000 years ago, and there is the matter of grave goods found in Neanderthal burials which also point to some sort of belief in an afterlife.

    If anything, it's the existance of religious belief systems which sets man apart from all other animals and it comes in no small part from our ability to learn by means other then direct experience. We can learn from the histories and experience of others.

    Beware the conciet of technocentrism. Tribal cultures may not build and fly 747's or spacecraft, but that doesn't really take away from what they do have in terms of culture which sets them apart from animals in the sense that you appear to understand the term.

  85. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Humans are not animals... <<

    Actually, in the strictest biological sense, we are animals. Very sophisticated animals but still animals.

  86. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    Biologically speaking, yes.

    >>Those tribes of people are animals. They think like animals and act like animals.<<

    In terms of that, no.

    Know what I mean, Michael?

  87. #87
    George L. Lorton
    Guest
    Hi Kat,

    Thanks for that elaboration! I'm always happy to learn something new (even if it differs on something I've previously believed! Actually, I think it's even better! ).
    That's all it was really an elaboration. I didn't even notice you had basically said the same thing till I'd posted. Laws back then were tricky in that they tended to change and differed a bit from county to county.

    Oh, and I noticed that you deleted a post on our Titanic movie page. Re-thinking my casting??? lol
    No, You will be playing Madeleine Astor but I was thinking of re-casting you as Edith Russell. If you would rather do that part lemme know. I think you'd be swell as Edith. Miss Russell was quite a lady. Look her up here on ET if you haven't yet. For starters Russell was the name she used not her real surname but what she was known by. Just a thought! I was also thinking about you doing Violet Jessop but I think you'd have more fun as Russell.

  88. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    58,188
    >>Know what I mean, Michael?<<

    Yes. What I was attempting to do was make the destinction.

  89. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    189
    >>Yes. What I was attempting to do was make the destinction.<<

    Ok.

  90. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Witney
    Posts
    726
    The word "animal" simply means living thing, and it is from the Latin word animus which means life or spirit. On that basis, Humans, cats, dogs, etc are animals because they have awareness or spirit, whereas plants are not regarded as animals because they have life but (as far as we know) they lack sensation.

  91. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
    Posts
    158
    I don't know how the conversation went from dealing with menstrual cycle on board the Titanic, to cavemen, contraception, and Tudor history, just to name a few! All incredibly interesting topics anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kalafus View Post
    The immigrant women probably dealt with it in the "traditional" way
    What would the traditional way be? I'm curious now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael H. Standart View Post
    an IUD is a contraceptive device which is physically inserted inside the uterus. Nobody can quite explain how they work, although I suspect that the appliance tends to irritate the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized ova from emplanting.
    Allow me to respectfully disagree, the action of the IUD is very well documented and explained. It can contain either copper or progesterone. Copper acts as a natural spermicide: it destroys sperm, and contributes to disrupt the mobility of the spermatozoa. It does not stop the menstrual cycle in any way.
    Hormone IUD (with progesterone) instead aims at reducing or completely stopping the period: it is obviously viewed as more "dangerous".

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •