who on earth coined the stereotype that girls are obsessed with changing clothes i’ve been wearing the same t shirt and pajama pants for two days now and the same bra for like three
OOH OOH I KNOW THIS ONE! so in the elizabethan era queen elizabeth couldn’t appear like she was having That Time of the Month in front of the male members of her court, and you bet your ass if she had to remain in the public eye while she was bleeding from the snatch then the rest of the female courtiers did too. because they didn’t have handy dandy tampons back in the day, they would basically shove a rag down there and inevitably bleed onto the inner layers of their clothes. she what did they do? changed clothes. about eight times a day to be precise, and they did that all month long, so none of the delicate male constitutions would be offended by unseen yet implied bloody lady parts. this is part of why fashion was such a huuuuuge cultural item (and the secondhand clothing industry was such a huge part of society) because they had to appear like they were just doing it out of vanity/showing off their wealth. this became pretty much the standard mode of behavior for ladies who had to be out and about during shark week, right up until some nurses realized that the specialized gauze pads they used to plug up bullet wounds would work great for other such bleeding holes.
so yeah if you were wondering why dudes think women change their clothes a lot its because they don’t understand periods.
It always comes down to men not being able to handle periods
Public Service Announcement: If you are not a virgin do not presume to wear a white wedding dress. It is an honor that is earned from chastity and virtue. Not a tradition for you to soil if you lacked the same.
what about anal? does it count
The idea that the white wedding dress is “an honor that is earned from chastity and virtue” is historically bullshit.
In the west the white wedding dress has it’s origins in the Victorian era, specifically in the white dress Queen Victoria wore in her marriage to Prince Albert. At the time, red was the most popular color for upper-class women to wear at their wedding, and her wedding dress was sort of the contemporary version of Lady Gaga wearing some outlandish outfit to a red carpet event. (She also eschewed the ermine and crown traditional for a queen to wear, which was quite startling to many people.)
After that, a pure white dress became a fashionable way for wealthy, upper-class women to show off their money. Because a pure white dress would quickly yellow and could be ruined by a single spill or a little dirt in an era before 20th century laundering techniques, a white wedding dress was a way of saying “that’s right bitches, I’m so rich I can afford to have this beautiful, elaborate gown made for me and I’m only going to wear it once. Plus odds are good I’ll never work a day in my life or come into contact with anything that might soil it so yeah, great to be me, right?”
Connotations of spiritual purity and eventually virginity only came years later, when the idea of a “white wedding” began to appear in etiquette and housekeeping guidebooks. Even then, it was more because these qualities were associated with upper-class women rather than because the white dress was an honor earned through keeping hands off one’s genitals. Even then, most women just wore their best church dress to their wedding for quite a while. It was the image of thew white wedding dress in post WWII Hollywood movies that finally cemented it as a standard and iconic part of the culture.
Nowadays of course, the American wedding is an orgy of conspicuous consumption, and every woman regardless of her financial situation is expected to get married in a dress she’ll never wear again.
tl;dr, that tradition you’re so keen on protecting has less to do with virginity than is does with showing off big wads of cash.
Poor people would traditionally wear their Sunday best to get married in. They were usually black, brown or other dark colours, because Sunday Best outfits had to last for years and be appropriate for all occasions, including funerals.
Reblogged for historical debunking
I’m always in favor of historical debunking that also gives the middle finger to Magical Virginity.
If you ever feel like archaeological mysteries are impossible to solve without positing aliens, just remember that archaeologists ONLY JUST NOW realised that wet sand is easier to drag stuff along on than dry sand… and that this probably means Egyptian images showing people pouring water from vases in front of stone blocks as they were pulled are probably actually depicting the way those stones were pulled, not some religious ritual of “blessing the rocks”.
FYI in academia, “probably had religious significance” means “I haven’t got a clue what this is for”.
People who aren’t academics, but who have knowledge of things like spinning fibre, knitting, carving, smithing, building, hairdressing etc, keep on astounding academia by having insights into stuff they thought was a mystery.
what i learned today: in 1800 alexander hamilton and aaron burr were both defense lawyers for a guy who was accused of murder. they tried to cast suspicion on another guy who was near the scene of the crime, richard croucher. the details of what happened next are contentious, because the court transcript is vague and it honestly sounds like something either of these two fuckos would have done, so here’s a brief run-down of the two equally beautiful stories that have evolved regarding richard croucher’s day in court, paraphrased from ron chernow who was kind enough to ensure history didn’t forget this anecdote
the legend is, while croucher was testifying, hamilton held two candles under the dude’s face, giving him a “sinister glow”. he told the jury, “i conjure you to look through that man’s countenance to his conscience.” apparently spooked by a-ham’s theatrics, croucher confessed on the spot.
however! aaron burr later insisted HE was the one who put on this circus show. his version of the story is, he grabbed two candelabras and thrust them at croucher, exclaiming “BEHOLD THE MURDERER, GENTLEMEN!” croucher then ran out of the courtroom in terror
A rendition of this dramatic moment.
Posted on
Yet Hamilton shows how historians’ reliance on documents can make telling history precarious. In a pivotal scene after Hamilton has betrayed his wife, Elizabeth (called by her nickname Eliza throughout the play), she burns the letters he has written to her over the years. It’s an imagined scene that nonetheless demonstrates powerfully how fragile the historical record can be. She sings, “Let future historians wonder how Eliza reacted when you broke her heart,” deliberately asserting her agency over what is remembered. Miranda ends the production with Eliza, too. The cast joins in song to explain that after Hamilton’s death it was Eliza who collected his papers for preservation. The lesson is clear: the sources historians rely on to craft historical narratives exist not by some consequence of nature, but because people like Eliza Hamilton worked to preserve them.
