it is insane that no one cares about history. like the common language of reality. no one cares about that. and I know historical fact is contested blah blah blah I’m not making a claim about how to read history or what to count as history I mean as a baseline people are disinterested in history as like a foundation of their own knowledge. the beliefs in their head are not tethered by history. and this is not a problem for them. and I know this because citing history does not persuade people, it’s not a site of revelation. and you’re called insane for bringing it up
her armpits would NOT be clean shaven
every period drama heroine from before 1914 earliest, and more realistically like the mid-late 1920s. possibly later
neither of them have removed any hair from their bodies ever and they both pulled Olde Timey Villain Tom Hiddleston(TM)
die mad about it
Denim Jacket
c.1850
United States
This jacket would have been worn over a woman’s work dress or blouse, most likely while she labored outdoors. Its construction mimics the fashionable hourglass silhouette of the period, with tucks that cinch at the wrists and natural waistline. Denim is typically thought of as a menswear textile, but it was also common in women’s workwear during the 19th century.
Museum at FIT (Object number: P87.43.3)
Twh corset apologism is insane. Every medical professional with knowledge to day says wearing a back support all day every day is BAD for you!!!!!! "Less supportive" corsets were better for people and also it's funny how corsets are apparently the savior of big titty women to you but comfortable flexible corset that holds your tits in shouldn't be worm because if regressive? fuck off
I literally had to read this like three times to understand what you were saying and I'm still not fully sure I do
first of all, most doctors say that wearing back braces does not cause muscle atrophy. they're pretty quick to reassure people of that online, in a way that makes it kind of hilarious that they believe it of corsets that support the same muscles as aforesaid braces. here is a study on the matter, and a search for "do back braces cause muscle atrophy" will turn up a lot more info for you
secondly, I don't know what you're talking about re: "comfortable flexible corset that holds your tits in." are you referring to bras? if so, there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with them; the support from the shoulders can be less comfortable for some people than the support from over/underneath that a corset provides, but I've never said one is unilaterally better than the other for everyone
are you talking about 1920s corsets or corset/binder combos? because if so...yeah that's not "comfortable;" it's Spanx + a binder. It was designed to flatten, not merely support, and it was basically an elastic band squishing your torso. I'm sure that wasn't a universal torture device either- women got things done in it, clearly -but it's hardly the ideal support option
or you could be talking about something else entirely. it's really hard to say
anyway. corsets were not unilaterally awful. the medical "evidence" against them is over a century old across the board, often guesswork at best and misrepresentation of preserved specimens at worst, from doctors who had no access to modern diagnostic tools and also thought vigorous exercise could cause uterine prolapse. reliable primary sources suggest that most women did not wear them in a way that caused physical injury or significant discomfort, on a daily basis. of course not all women found even moderately-laced corsets comfortable, and it would be naïve to suggest that tightlacing never happened. but those are not the claims I'm making here
if that's "corset apologism," then I'm a horrible, brainwashed corset apologist, babey
the medical side of it is still wild to me
like. in NO other circumstances would modern doctors accept anecdotal 150-year-old "evidence" from people who conducted no studies meeting modern scientific standards, usually without any modern imaging tools (there is one x-ray of a woman wearing a corset from the early 20th century, but it's lacking any information about the degree of reduction from her natural waist, whether she's wearing the corset the way she usually does, her other medical history, any context on whether this is a typical use-case for this garment, or even her name), and often with visuals that are as unscientific as can be.
some of these old articles have a sketch of a nude Greek statue next to a 19th-century fashion plate image. and that's a serious point in their arguments. you'd be laughed out of most medical institutions today if you tried to use that as grounds for a theory
especially when it runs counter to things we HAVE observed more recently- namely, that wearing back supports habitually doesn't cause muscle atrophy and that the only CT scan performed on a corset-wearer to date showed no seriously harmful effects to her body
like, I get it. most doctors will never meet someone who wears a corset EVER, let alone someone habitually using it as a support garment a la the 19th century. and nobody is putting young teen girls into even lightly-boned corsets the way they did back then, so the overall effects are difficult to study as they would have been for Victorians who started that young. we will probably never fully understand the exact physical effects of Victorian-era corseting, because even modern corset-wearers don't do it precisely the same way
but these doctors should be embarrassed at what they're willing to accept as fact in this case, when it goes against all modern scientific practice re: testing a hypothesis. you don't implicitly trust 1880s research on anything else- why is it suddenly ironclad fact where corsets are concerned?
The irony of doing deforestation in a land that already has nearly no forests, only to place some giant bird-killing things there in the name of “green energy.” Don’t let me even get started about how much harmful manufacturing processes need to take place to make wind turbines.
>the trees that were cut down were a commercial crop that would have been cut down regardless
>this was over a 20 year period that they planted 272 million more trees
>That 14 million is less than 1% of the total woodland area in scotland
Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) confirmed to Full Fact that an estimated 13.9 million trees were felled for wind farms on land that it managed (which is about 10% of Scotland’s land and one third of its forests).
But it also said that over the same period 272 million trees were planted in Scotland by all land managers (not just FLS). This number does not include replanting commercial trees that have been felled, and on average FLS plants 25 million trees per year of this type.
FLS added that, “To date, the amount of woodland removed across Scotland’s national forests and land (managed by FLS) for windfarm development is not even 1 per cent of the total woodland area managed by FLS.”
People wanna hate renewable energy so fucking bad.
do u have any opinions on claires red dress from outlander s2 e2? seems kind of out of place to me with the styling but might just be a gut reaction?
I don't have a ton of opinions on much of the Outlander costumes that she's implied to have designed herself, because she's from the 1940s and working with custom mantua-makers as was the norm back then. So that's going to impact her designs a lot, and they're NOT going to look perfectly 18th century.
I think it's pretty but kind of boring, and the neckline is a bit of a WTF. that looks good on no-one, costume designers.
her boobs are just unsupported under there? with that weird cut in between? looks like Rampart Bodice City, where the bodice sticks up into the air with a gap at the front, but I can't find any side shots to clarify what's going on here. they don't even look stuck to her breasts with fashion tape or anything, which I guess is accurate, but it makes things even weirder. even the Simplicity pattern image for this dress makes more sense, with the model's boobs actually pushed up and together like real 18th-century stays would:
oooh look out there's about to be a Boob Spillover because of the notch in the neckline (but not really)! logical! sense-making!
Also she's clearly not wearing a chemise or stays, so while the fashionable cone silhouette is present, I'm not sure what on earth is creating it besides maybe a heavily boned dress?
and is she wearing American Duchess' Edwardian "Colette" boots under that? that's not a style that owes anything to the 1940s OR the 1740s
I'm willing to accept 1940s Lady Does 18th Century By Way of The 1940s, but some of this is diverging into 21st-century clothing technology just to make it happen
now, the 18th-century Dior bar suit she comes up with is indeed pretty cool:
but the red dress is just a lot of "I see what you were going for but you could have made it flattering, guys" to me
there are no hard rules for human interaction but honestly i think everyone online would benefit hugely from operating under the assumption that, unless you have been given a specific reason to think otherwise in discrete instances, internet strangers do not want to be approached with:
- your trauma, illnesses, or deep-rooted self worth issues
- any come-ons or sexual content
- over-familiar playful rudeness
- information about your dnd characters/ocs
- disagreements with their harmless subjective opinions
if it is your first time speaking with someone i can not highly enough recommend that these do not be your opening topics
something that has happened enough that it’s officially a Pattern of internet behavior: i will make a tweet that’s like, a jokey headcanon about a piece of media, and then someone i’ve never spoken to before in my life will come into the replies to try and offer a directly contradictory and actively depressing take. and either within their initial reply, or once i’ve expressed polite disagreement, they’ll make sure i know that the reason they have this headcanon is because they’re projecting their own trauma or self worth issues onto a fictional character.
and the thing that really gets me about this is that i am like 90% sure these people don’t have any ill intentions or even think they’re particularly overstepping. but i just can not fathom what the intended response to these things. i have NO idea what sort of reaction they’re looking for. it’s such a weird and uncomfortable spot to be put in. it’s a great way to get instantly put on my mental list of people to never engage with in the future
We’ve all heard the “I like pancakes” / “Oh, so you hate waffles?” example of a social media exchange, but we don’t talk enough about how “I like pancakes” / “I can’t eat pancakes anymore since my brother choked to death on one before my eyes” is not a great approach either.
im aware this is an insane thing to say but i fucking. love characters that are just cockroaches. and i dont mean like. gross i mean they just do not fucking die. they can survive anything. they will outlive EVERYONE because they just will not die no matter what be it because they have a reason or because they literally cannot stop surviving the odds i love it i love it
having viral posts is all fun and games until you have clowns in your mentions being like "well, op, i bet you also didn't know THIS" [haughtily explains something i absolutely would and do know] like add whatever to my posts that you think is informative just don't direct it at ME! i know! i just didn't include it in the post i made in 20 seconds because i didn't think 30,000 of you would see it!
i love these tags. WHAT was your viral post i need to know so badly.
some of our collective suffering
hi everyone. the batter will thicken as the flour hydrates. so start it a tiny bit runny and let it sit ten minutes to idk half an hour and it will be perfect. hydrated flour from rested batter also yields a significantly more tender pancake. peace and love
Ginger-juice milk curd 姜汁撞奶 or Ginger Milk Pudding,a popular popular desserts in Cantonese cuisine
shocked bystander at sydney, australia’s annual mardis gras pride parade (1994)
For those who give a shit about it, this is a staged photo, the woman on the left is a drag queen doing a bit. Here's a few more photos of her taking in the beautiful sights and sounds of the parade:
(by Mervyn L. Fitzhenry)
Beware the Beast
In time travel movies, when the time traveler asks 'What year is this?!?' they're always treated like they're being weird for asking.
When in reality, if you go 'What year is this?!?' people will just say '2024. Crazy huh.' and you go 'Wtf where has my youth gone.'
And if you ask 'And what month??' people won't judge you, they'll just go like 'SEPTEMBER!!! Can you believe it?!?!' and you go 'WHAT?!? Last time I checked we were in May?!?'
That is a great point. Especially if you time travel to a period of Big Historical Events, when everybody's looking a little wild about the eyes.
"Hey, what month is it?"
"January already, can you believe it? I swear I was just at Pompeii, but no one's going there again."
In the same vein:
Stumbling into a diner and asking "What town is this" isn't weird, the workers will think you're on a road trip
If you ask them "Where's the nearest Nano Deck?" they'll assume it's a shop they've never heard of and say "Sorry, I don't know where any of those are"
Going into a store and telling a cashier "I need pods for my comm device" will just get you a "Never heard of those, maybe try Radio Shack?"
I think the problem is that people who create sci-fi movies have never had to work customer service jobs
Why do you hide the truth in the tags
[image description: screenshot of tumblr tags that say, "#world building #the problem with most movies is that they are created by people who never worked customer service jobs #not just sci-fi"]