Naughty behavior and sordid happenings in the Gilded Age


Arun Vajpey

Member
>>>>> No but he has a talent for seeking out and casting the darkest light on everything and taking apart other people opinions which if they are mistaken is not a bad thing but he also won't see their point of view either and is somewhat condescending and that can be irritating!<<<<<

I know you said to move out George and I will, but I have to say that I got the same impression but unlike you I was not brave enough to come out and say so. Thanks.
 
Thanks Arun, Not so much bravery as exasperation!

Nope Kat still here!
happy.gif
Interesting Question!

Basically a man wanted to be sure a virgin was a virgin and not pregnant or had a sexual disease because she had a dalliance before marriage! Really in my opinion it devalues a woman and just makes her a brood mare. Even the Romans had this view of virginity so it wasn't something introduced with Christianity like I always thought when I was younger and more naive! Inheritance issues was the motivator through Roman times and even now in some places and some male instinct perhaps? Like you Kat, I too would like to hear some input from expert or folks who could explain it better then I!

I hope I explained it adequately! As I said before great to hear from you again!
 
>he also won't see their point of view either and is somewhat condescending and that can be irritating!

Oh, I'll see an opposing point of view alright. I just have this admittedly naive hope that people are capable of articulating them better than "Because I say so" or "Because I want it to be so."

So, let me ask again. And answer only this: WHAT primary research have you all done regarding Holborn to allow you to articulate such a strong a defense? Other than the oft-regurgitated account of his, and the Wikipedia entry, do you know anything about the man at all? "Because I say so" and "Because I want it to be so" do not work.

I've done a VERY large amount of primary research involving normal/abnormal sexuality, both historical and contemporary. And from this research, I can say with confidence that parents in 1915, like parents in 2009, were extremely...concerned...about adult strangers interacting with their minor children. And rightfully so. And I can say, with confidence, that Holborne's interaction with Avis seems...odd...by the standards of either era. I have been careful, throughout, NOT so say that anything happened between them, but only that the appearance of impropriety has given the story a very creepy cast.

So, rebut me. Using your primary research on Holborn and on sexual mores, rebut me. This is EXACTLY what I would say if we were sitting together.

>Yes, there are predators out there but I think it's safe to assume that Prof. Ian Holbourn wasn't one of them!

Okay, George. This is something I have to ask: upon what, other than "Because I say so," can one base that assumption?

>No but he has a talent for seeking out and casting the darkest light on everything

Thanks. It's nice to be recognized for that....it's a honed talent, inspired by massive contempt for the kind of romanticized blather that coats much of the Titanic story like a sugared lard frosting.

>while the no one notices the genuinely kindly gent across the road for his good deeds.

What if he begins paying very close attention to your 12 year old daughter?
 
I've personally not researched very far into the Prof. and Avis, but just from reading the facts presented, in my opinion, there is something a little creepy about it. Even the innocent portrayal of the "friendship", I'll call it, in the documentary 'Lusitania: Murder on the Atlantic' caused me to raise an eyebrow. It's just unusual for a man of that age, travelling alone, to take such interest in a child who is also, apparently, travelling alone.

One would also think that being a Professor in his 40's, Holbourn would realize that this kind of friendship would raise a few eyebrows, but yet he apparently went ahead with it. Why?

Personally, if I were Prof. Holbourn even with the most innocent and saintly intentions, I would have spared myself the possible gossip/speculation and just stayed away from the kid because an adult (especially a stranger) really has no business approaching a child that's not theirs for any reason unless said child is in some kind of distress and needs immediate help.

I might just be a product of my times in that I hear about stuff like this happening almost daily on the news and have heard about it almost daily all my life, so I might be inclined to be a bit more suspicious of someone in Holbourn's position, but I think it would be wise not to come to the conclusion that it's totally impossible.

Just my two cents.
 
Okay, George. This is something I have to ask: upon what, other than "Because I say so," can one base that assumption?
I never said I say so nor implied it! I only stated that it is safe to assume that Prof. Holbourn had nothing but a kindly interest in Avis Dolphin! Do to their conduct on the Lusitania and after the disaster!

>>>No but he has a talent for seeking out and casting the darkest light on everything <<

Thanks. It's nice to be recognized for that....it's a honed talent, inspired by massive contempt for the kind of romanticized blather that coats much of the Titanic story like a sugared lard frosting.
I meant not only on Titanic but everything. I am of the opinion that you are a very cynical person and a nit picker as well. But we all have our own quirks and no body is perfect! It's nice to strive for perfection but not nice to drag everyone along with you and then nit pick at them when they don't measure up to your exacting standards or come up with an opinion you don't happen to like!

So, rebut me. Using your primary research on Holborn and on sexual mores, rebut me. This is EXACTLY what I would say if we were sitting together.
Actually if we were sitting together I don't think we would of had the argument in the first place. People tend to be more polite in person then they do online. I would probably change the subject or say I agree with you or that's interesting and move the conversation on! Which is what I'm trying to do now..
 
Actually Jim,

Thinking about it what do you know about Avis Dolphin and Prof. Ian Holbourn's Characters and or histories?? You've stated in this topic that you have avoided studying them and so I ask what do you know about them??

I can see why you would make an assumption that there was something dark and sinister about a 42 year old man befriending a 12 year old girl. That is understandable. I'm sure folks in 1915 would of been concerned about it too yet they weren't for some reason! At least I have never heard anything about any concern until now about Avis Dolphin's friendship with Prof. Holbourn!

Kat,

I'm sorry! I tried to move the topic along and I sincerely hope somebody answers your Question! I tried to! It's a good question and fits this topic very well!
happy.gif
 
Hi, George!

>>Basically a man wanted to be sure a virgin was a virgin and not pregnant or had a sexual disease because she had a dalliance before marriage! Really in my opinion it devalues a woman and just makes her a brood mare. Even the Romans had this view of virginity so it wasn't something introduced with Christianity like I always thought when I was younger and more naive! Inheritance issues was the motivator through Roman times and even now in some places and some male instinct perhaps? <<

I had heard something along those lines before! Glad to have it backed up!
happy.gif


I also know that back in certain times (Middle Ages, and perhaps Ancient Greece), virginity was tied strongly to dowry's; a woman's worth was literally increased by her chastity. Not to mention I'm sure there was a lot of male ego, posturing and strutting involved! :p When you're the only man in her life, even Pee-Wee Herman's Hercules! :p ;)
 
Hey Kat,

I book I like and recommend is "Pompeii The Living City" by Ray Lawrence and Alex Butterworth which is about life in the ancient city of Pompeii about the last 25 years before the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD which has a section on how Roman Girls or young woman were regarded in society during courtship and before marriage and the book also had a bit on Roman Marriage in general! I love this book and highly recommend it! Mind you it deal only with Roman Pagan society but it is pretty much how unmarried girls of childbearing age are treated in a so called civilised society in the ancient world! Julia Felix is an interesting case study of a rich Pompeian woman who did manage to break into business on her own but even she would of had to have a male guardian to do her business for her and her case is shadowy! But she's is also discussed in Pompeii The Living City along with slaves and courtesans and concubines!

Some societies notably the Greeks segregated the sexes and kept them separated for the most part while they were unmarried.

There's another book on Joan Of Arc that gives a brilliant view on Marriage in Medieval France in the peasant class but I have read this one years ago so the title escapes me at the moment! Damn!

Basically, Kat when folks say Women have come a long way they are not overstating it at all! Woman had a dreary load back in the day! But I bet you knew this already!
happy.gif
 
>I'm sorry! I tried to move the topic along

No, actually you dipped into your arsenal of passive aggressive traits and, while saying some things that might be construed as insulting, once again employed the 'let's keep this moving' dodge that you seem to favor when one requests that you expand upon a generalization.

One might be cruel and point out that going on at length about Pompeii really has nothing to do with Kept Men, Naughtiness, or the Gilded Age. And that neither you, nor Arun who admired your bravery, have addressed my question. You DID employ the classic teenage technique of trying to dodge the question by repeating it back at me. And, like any good parent, I shall now make you regret having employed such a tactic in the hopes that you will not do so again:

>Thinking about it what do you know about Avis Dolphin and Prof. Ian Holbourn's Characters and or histories??

What I said, at the beginning, and have maintained, is that I have done little PRIMARY SOURCE RESEARCH on either of them. You have broadly, and incorrectly, interpreted that as far back as your remark about my knowledge of Holborn's children. I KNOW about both of them, but only thru what others have written. Which would make anything I said the equivalent of a sound byte. People who formulate opinions based ONLY on what they read in books are, at best, shallow, and their comments, at best, on the level of interesting but not deep cocktail party chatter. So, I have opted to eliminate Avis and Holborn from my postings as much as possible and concentrate ONLY on what I have learned thru my archival jaunts:

*America was going thru a periodic TAKE BACK THE STREETS phase in the years prior to 1915.

*The realities of procuring and pedophilia were NOT a hidden subject.

*Parents were warned, with the subtle approach of a sledgehammer blow, of the Friendly Stranger who was waiting in every ice cream parlor, movie theater, train station, lurking and waiting for the chance to drag YOUR DAUGHTER into a life of white slavery. The "benevolent stranger" rumored to have existed in Victorian years was passe by the Wilson years. Parents were aware of the dangers presented by strangers who chatted up their children.

In light of that, it must be allowed that Holborn's interest in Avis might have set off warning bells among the American passengers in second class. I do not know how far White Slavery Fear had spread into Canada or England, or how aware the UK passengers were of the procuring and pimping angle.

*The account gave me the creeps 22 years ago. My wife at work, reading it today with no input from me, found it "weird." Tim found it weird, and wondered aloud, as I did, why he did not direct his paternalism towards ALL the dozens of bored kids in second class, and not just towards a 12 year old girl traveling without her parents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBc8ZjrSPOI
Tomorrow I will bounce it off my usual panel of disinterested-in-history experts and say "Interpret." To see if, among the non-history set, this account seems on the level or odd.

> I am of the opinion that you are a very cynical person and a nit picker as well. But we all have our own quirks and no body is perfect!

Nit picking? Dear lord. I have never had lice and can assure you that I have never picked a nit, from myself or anyone else. Cynical, yes, but do NOT question my hygiene, or that of those around me. And, with advances in medicinal shampoos, it has been QUITE a time since anyone, other than the extremely poor, has had to pick nits.

Cynicism is not a quirk. It is a cultivated trait. I value it in myself, and in others around me. I am quite tactful around ignorance, which is a human trait we all possess in certain areas, but feel no need to be remotely polite, or tolerant, about willful stupidity.
 
One might be cruel and point out that going on at length about Pompeii really has nothing to do with Kept Men, Naughtiness, or the Gilded Age. And that neither you, nor Arun who admired your bravery, have addressed my question.
Arun probably wants to keep his distance from you and I for one don't blame him. I will be happy to address you question if only to get you off my back! True about the Pompeii pit and you did point it out and I starting to think you have it in you to be very cruel! I was answering a question!

Cynicism is not a quirk. It is a cultivated trait. I value it in myself, and in others around me.
That's no surprise! But you go beyond cynicism at time into plain rudeness and seem to get untold pleasure out of tripping people up! I'm not gonna play your little mind games!

I am quite tactful around ignorance, which is a human trait we all possess in certain areas, but feel no need to be remotely polite, or tolerant, about willful stupidity.
You are not tactful at all and deep down you know it!! So I'm wilfully Stupid is what your implying along with me being Passive aggressive as well. Well if I seem passive maybe because it's because I don't want to play your little games or give you more ammunition and if I'm wilfully stupid at least I'm smart enough not to play your little games.

You also could be described as just plain aggressive when you come across an opinion that differs from your own! I wonder how many other people you have ticked off on this board in the past!! I'm finished with this, all you want to do is argue and play your little games but I'm not going to jump through you hoops any longer!!

No, actually you dipped into your arsenal of passive aggressive traits and, while saying some things that might be construed as insulting, once again employed the 'let's keep this moving' dodge that you seem to favor when one requests that you expand upon a generalization.
No that wasn't my intent! There is nothing to expand upon. I will be happy to try and answer your question! I really don't remember where I first read of Prof. Holbourn although I do remember reading something about him online. Perhaps at the Lusitania Resource! Ballard's "Exploring the Lusitania" is another source although I haven't read that in 20 years or so! Wikipedia. Are you Happy now!!!! I stated my piece and even supplied you with my sources! Frankly after the way you badgered me, I really don't care if there was something to Avis Dolphin or Prof. Holbourn! Satisfied!?? You should be! You beat me down with your bag of mind tricks!
 
>>Yes, there are predators out there but I think it's safe to assume that Prof. Ian Holbourn wasn't one of them!<<

Why would anybody think that this is a safe assumption? The proverbial wolves out there always wrap themselves in sheep's clothing and there is nothing a predator finds more useful then that cloke of respectability.
 
Why would anybody think that this is a safe assumption? The proverbial wolves out there always wrap themselves in sheep's clothing and there is nothing a predator finds more useful then that cloke of respectability.
True!!! As for Avis Dolphin and Prof. Holbourn that boat has sailed! Speaking for myself I'm done with the whole argument!
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
George, I am sorry for bringing up Prof Holbourn and Avis Dolphin for discussion. I did not expect this to flare up into the sort of passionate exchange that it has become. But then some people simply believe that THEY are right and others are wrong and will not see any other point of view. Not much point in hammering your head against a brick wall.

I'll just say one thing. I am a GP (General Practitioner) by trade ie a Family Doctor working of the National health Service in the UK. The NHS is a concept that is not often familiar across the Pond but our responsibilities include things like teenage health, sex education, child abuse and so on. In 23 years as a doctor, I have worked in deprived areas with more than average problems of drugs, sexual abuse, adolescent health etc and so I am not exactly unaware of the score. But one learns form experience not only that the world is not as rosy as one believed but also not to look at it with jaundiced eyes. We regularly work with the Social Services in placing abused kids in care and so have to be involved in vetting those carers. Somewhere along the line one will have to learn to separate the wolf from the watchdog and we usually do all right.
 
No there's nothing for you to be sorry for Arun! You didn't start anything and that's all I'm going to say on that!

Somewhere along the line one will have to learn to separate the wolf from the watchdog and we usually do all right.
I'm sure you do and that's a nice analogy! Wolf from the Watchdog!

I'm still surprised no one has brought the subject of Evelyn Nesbit! She was a 16 year old girl who was exploited for sexual purposes by an older man (Stanford White) and her case is well documented. She even has a Titanic tie-in via Clinch Smith!

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

and~

http://evelynnesbit.com/
 
Top