A Woman in a Miniskirt

Not sure what interested me about this story of a woman in a miniskirt walking along an empty road:

Apparently, it “caused a stir in Saudi Arabia.” In another report, it had “sparked outrage in Saudi Arabia.” And next it had “caused outrage worldwide.” And then it had sent the country “into a frenzy.” And then “Saudi Arabian officials hunting woman who allegedly broke strict dress code laws.” And she was being “sought by Saudi police.” Next, “Woman Could Go To Jail For Wearing A Miniskirt.”

I’ve yet to see any report saying that she should receive 500 lashes, or be beheaded. But I won’t be surprised if I do.

Back in May, Melania and Ivanka Trump did not observe the Saudi dress code laws while visiting Saudi Arabia. The laws only apply to the “little people”, as ever.

I think I see the connection:

Good thing she wasn’t smoking a cigarette as well.

Are smoking bans any different from strict dress codes? Aren’t both Wahhabi Islamic laws? Isn’t Deborah Arnott in effect head of the UK’s Islamic religious police? Is Deborah Arnott a Wahhabi Muslim? If not, why not?

Smoking bans may be regarded as part of a process of Islamisation. We already have halal meat. The invasion of Europe by Islamic fundamentalists is also part of the process, fully supported by European leaders like Angela Merkel. Is she another secret Muslim?

Isn’t outrage at seeing people smoking any different from outrage at seeing women in miniskirts? Isn’t the war on smoking a religious war?

Not unrelated. The continuing march of not so much the nanny state as the Islamic State: The UK will block online porn from next year.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to A Woman in a Miniskirt

  1. roobeedoo2 says:

    Smoking bans kill two birds with one stone by decimating purveyors of alcohol, i.e. pubs and working men’s clubs.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Yes, the antismoking movement has much of its roots in the Temperance Movement. That;s why they din;t mind the decline of the pub. They see both drinking and smoking as vices to be eliminated.

  2. Rose says:

    Just in.

    Towards a smoke-free generation: tobacco control plan for England
    Department of Health
    18 July 2017

    “The objectives of the tobacco control plan are to:
    reduce the number of 15 year olds who regularly smoke from 8% to 3% or less
    reduce smoking among adults in England from 15.5% to 12% or less
    reduce the inequality gap in smoking prevalence, between those in routine and manual occupations and the general population
    reduce the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy from 10.5% to 6% or less

    The aim is to achieve these objectives by the end of 2022.”
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towards-a-smoke-free-generation-tobacco-control-plan-for-england

    • RdM says:

      The Family Circle
      New Zealand Tablet, 23 July 1914

      THE FOE OF GERMS.

      While it has long been known that tobacco smoke is a valuable preventative against infection during the epidemic of a contagious disease, it is only recently that an analysis of smoke-laden air in an East-end (London) district has been contrasted with- equally dense air in which tobacco fumes were lacking (says a writerin Tit Jilts). These analyses have shown that more.than one-half of the harmful germs had been destroyed by the tobacco smoke. This fact lias unconsciously been the means of preventing large loss of life, as was noted in lire recent, cholera epidemic in Germany, when workers in cigar factories were found to be immune to cholera, and wherein the victims were mainly from the non-smokers of the city. Experiments conducted in a cholera-stricken house, one floor of which was occupied with a cigar factory, led Professor Wcncke, of the Imperial Institute of Berlin, to the conclusion that the cholera germs cannot endure tobacco smoke. It was found that saliva containing virulent germs was completely sterilised by five minutes’exposure to tobacco smoke. It was further discovered that, although the water used in the tobacco factory, both for drinking water and in moistening the cigars, was full of septic bacteria, not a cigarmaker sickened, and the cigars themselves were free of the deadly peril. Determining to put the issue to a drastic test, a few tobacco leaves were moistened with water, a glass tumblerful of which contained over a million active germs, whereupon it was found that within twenty-four hours every one of the bacilli was dead. It has been a matter of common knowledge that inflammations of the mouth are fended off by the use of tobacco, and that unhealthy conditions of the mouth can never be traced to smoking, unless the habit is excessive. Now it appears that the smoker in a crowded room is truly a benefactor to humanity instead of the selfish brute some people would have us believe.

      https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

  3. Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

    Yet more illiberal posturing from the perpetually offended with no insight. Of course as usual the youth no smoking targets are utterly arbitrary. Bet if those arbitrary targets were achieved, as usual a new set would be trotted out.

  4. Vlad says:

    “Pipes and tobacco : being a discourse on smoking and smokers”, an interesting little book written by an Englishman in 1901 https://archive.org/details/b28068725
    What I think is noteworthy is how he describes tobacco as a luxury – before the age of ‘public health’ and sin taxes ‘for our own good’. He says that 6 pence a week is good spend for tobacco – that’s anywhere between £2.5 and £25 in today’s money according to this calculator: https://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/
    It made me think that even in the golden age before Healthism ideology with its taxes and harassment of smokers took over, tobacco wasn’t as cheap as perhaps many imagine today.

    ##In point of fact, it is impossible to define any other method by which the modest sum I have mentioned can contribute so greatly to your comfort as in its expenditure in tobacco.
    Many and many a man on meeting friend or acquaintance inevitably leads the way to the nearest
    bar out of good-fellowship. A shilling or a couple of shillings are spent upon brandies, or whiskies
    and soda, that really neither of them needs, and probably would be much better without. It is, so
    far as they are concerned, utter waste, and yet the custom has become so habitual that no one thinks anything of it. But supposing it were suggested to one of these men that by smoking a certain brand or mixture of tobacco costing a few pence more than he has been in the habit of paying, he would gain more pleasure and derive a greater benefit from his pipe, he would cry aloud at the extravagance—while, on the other hand, he gaily wastes three times the amount of the extra payment in an utterly senseless fashion in five minutes.##

    Nowadays that we have the smoking ban, buying overpriced drinks in a bar is even more utter waste than in 1901. :)

    • Emily says:

      I recently read this essay by George Orwell from 1946 comparing his expenditure on tobacco to what he spent on books:

      With prices as they now are, I am spending far more on tobacco than I do on books. I smoke six ounces a week, at half-a-crown an ounce, making nearly £40 a year. Even before the war when the same tobacco cost 8d an ounce, I was spending over £10 a year on it: and if I also averaged a pint of beer a day, at sixpence, these two items together will have cost me close on £20 a year.

      http://orwell.ru/library/articles/cigar/english/e_cigar

      • Vlad says:

        Hey, very interesting stuff. Half a crown an ounce means 30 pence so a standard 50g tin would cost about 53 pence. In today’s money that would be anywhere from £7.8 to £44. A Dunhill 50g tin (considered to be a premium tobacco) costs around £15.
        I thought tobacco was much cheaper back in the day…

        • Rose says:

          Tobacco has always been expensive in England since James 1st who took violently against smoking raised the import tax from the previous 2 pence a pound to six shillings and eight pence in 1604, With 12 pence to a shilling you can see what a huge tax rise that was.

          He did it to price the poor out of smoking just as they do now.

          “”through evell Custome and the Toleration thereof, excessivelie taken by a nomber of ryotous and disordered Persons of meane and base Condition, whoe, contrarie to the use which Persons of good Callinge and Qualitye make thereof,doe spend most of there tyme in that idle Vanitie, to the evill example and corrupting of others, and also do consume that Wages whiche manye of them gett by theire Labour, and wherewith there Families should be releived, not caring at what Price they buye that Drugge,”
          https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/blaste.app.html

          Echoed in 2013 by the British Heart Foundation.

          Fags over family? Smoker’s choice sparks hate from loved ones
          February 27, 2013

          “Nearly a third of smokers surveyed admit their children or family hates them smoking and a quarter enjoy smoking less nowadays because they feel more guilty about it.
          Proving loved ones can often come a poor second to cigarettes, almost one in five of smokers confessed they could buy more for their family if they were to quit smoking, according to figures we’ve released to mark the launch of the thirtieth annual No Smoking Day campaign.”
          http://web.archive.org/web/20130301044414/http://www.bhf.org.uk/media/news-from-the-bhf/no-smoking-day1.aspx

        • Tony says:

          Err.. Half a crown was 2′ 6d which is 12.5p. So that would make it 22p for 50g. Less than half your figure. Also, I think your £15 figure is for 50g pipe tobacco but Orwell smoked rollups and 50g of hand rolling tobacco costs more like £20 in the UK at present.

          Taking your inflation estimate, tobacco costs between one and six times more today . So probably much cheaper back then.

        • RdM says:

          HYGIENE FOR SMOKERS.
          New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 160, 2 June 1876

          HYGIENE FOR SMOKERS.
          The following are Dr. Berthand’s precepts and advice to smokers :— • Never smoke more than three or four pipes or cigars a day, and if it ia possible, limit yourself to two. It is unwholesome to smoke on an empty stomach or immediately before or after a meal. Whatever be the mode of smoking, direct contact of the tobacco with the mucus buccalis (mucous lining of the cheeks) and the teeth must be avoided Cigars should be smoked in an amber, ivory, or porcelain mouthpiece. To smoke, by relighting them, portions of cigars that have been extinguished, together with the system of blackened and juicy pipes, constitutes the surest way of being affected by nicotine. Every smoker would do well, if he could, to rinse his mouth after smoking. A fortiori is the same precaution applicable to chewers. For the same reason it would be well to subject pipes and bowls in which tobacco has been burned, to frequent washings, either with ether or with water mixed with alcohol or vinegar. It is difficult to choose between the different ways of Smoking. I give preference to the cigarette, by reason of its slight quantitative importance and the paper, which interferes with the contact of its contents with the buccal mucous membrane. But to realize all the desiderata, it would be necessary to have the papelito made of flax thread, and to abstain from the practice which has become the ne plus ultra of its kind, retaining the aspiration at the back of the mouth, so as to pour it out of the nostrils afterward. The premature habit of smoking is certainly hurtful to childhood, and during the adolescent period ot organic evolution. The economy cannot but suffer at this period from the narcotic influence, be it never so slight, and from the salivation which is inseparable from this act. All persons cannot smoke with impunity. There are pathological counter indications or idiosyncrasies to this habit that it would be imprudent and culpable to infringe. Diseases of the, lungs, of the heart, chronic affections of the mouth, nose, eyes, throat, and stomach, are the results of the present incompatibilities. The airing of apartments where smoking has taken place should be well attended to. To sleep in rooms where tobacco smoke exists, slowly constitutes a grave infraction on the elementary laws of hygiene. — • Tribune Medicale.’

          https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZT18760602.2.32?query=tobacco

      • Frank Davis says:

        I smoke six ounces a week,

        For a long time I used to smoke half an ounce a day, which is 3.5 ounces a week. Almost half what Orwell smoked.

        • That Orwell sounds a bit of a whimp. Only 6oz a week, dear God, that’s not smoking , that’s just playing at it.
          Just out of interest does anyone know offhand what brand of rolling tobacco Orwell favoured?

      • RdM says:

        LITERARY WORK AND TOBACCO.
        New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 495, 6 October 1882

        LITERARY WORK AND TOBACCO.

        Ix response to a circular recently sent out by Mr. Arthur Beade, who has been collecting information as to the habits of literary men in regard to stimulants, the Abb 6 Moigno giveß an interesting and and characteristic record of his experiences. Tbe letter, appearing in his paper, Les Mondes, states that he has published 150 volumes, email and great ; that he scarcely ever leaves his work table, and never takes walking exercise ; yet he never has a trace of headache, or brain-weariness, or constipation, or any form of urinary trouble) etc. He never has recourse for his work to stimulants, coffee, alcohol) tobacco, etc., a statement which the sequel shows to need qualification. Snuff-taking he has sometimes practised, but he vigorously condemns it. He has learnt 12 foreign languages by a method of his own, and with regard to his acquirements in philology and chronology he says : ” I was one of the most extraordinary personalities of my time, and Francois Arago sometimes laughingly threatened to have me burned as a sorcerer.” On one occasion, when in Munich for a few weeks and spending his evenings with Bararian savants, who each smoked four or five cigars and drank two or three pots of beer daily (Steinhill, the most illustrious, boasted of smoking 6,000 cigars a year), the Abbe came to smoke three or four cigars a day. He had also anew taken to snuff, so that, when preparing his calculus of variations, a very difficult mathematical work, be wonld empty his snuff-box (which held 25 grammes) in a day. But one day he was surprised to find himself painfully unable to recall the meaning of foreign words, and remember dates with which be had been familiar. Thereupon be formed a heroic resolution, and since August 31, 1863, when he smoked three cigars and took 25 centimes worth of snuff, he has, up to the 25th of June, 1882, touched neither. This was, for him, a complete reserrection, not only of memory, but of general health and well-being ; he has had indefinite capacity of work, unconscious digestion, perfect assimilation of food (of which be can take more), &c. For the rest, he mentions that he takes a small cup of black coffee in the morning, and when all but two or three spoonfuls has been drunk, he adds a small spoonful of brandy or other alcoholic liquor. This is his ration of stimulants. He goes to bed about nine, and rises at fire, ” full of vigour.” The Abbe is over 80.— Times.
        https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/NZT18821006.2.6?query=tobacco

        • waltc says:

          Why is tne word email in line 6?

        • Apparently OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software sometimes mimic the effects of Macular Degeneration. Should have read:

          “… states that he has published 150 volumes, small and great; that he scarcely ever leaves his work-table …”

  5. slugbop007 says:

    The tobacco control plan is just a ruse to keep their extortion racket afloat. State your objectives, pretend that they can be achieved and hope that the source of the funding, taxpayer money, continues to flow into their coffers.

    slugbop007

  6. Vlad says:

    @Tony
    half a crown means 2 shillings and 6 pence. 1 shilling = 12 pence, hence half a crown = 2X12 +6 = 30 pence for an ounce —> 53 pence for 1.75 ounces of tobacco (50g).
    You’re right about rolling tobacco being more expensive than pipe tobacco (as Rose said, a strategy to price out the poor)….but £20 for 50g is still comfortably within the interval given.

    • nisakiman says:

      You’re confusing the value of Old Pence and New Pence, Vlad.

      Half a Crown, or 2/6d is the equivalent of 12½ New pence, there being 240 Old Pence (20×12) in a pound, as opposed to 100 New pence. So 50g would have cost approximately 5 shillings. or 25p back then.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    She’s been arrested. Her name is Khulood.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/saudi-police-arrest-model-filmed-wearing-miniskirt-crop-top/
    Saudi Arabia’s vice and virtue police have arrested a young woman who was filmed in an archaeological site wearing a miniskirt and crop top

    • nisakiman says:

      Saudi Arabia’s vice and virtue police…

      Now there’s a phrase to send chills down your spine. But with a remit not dissimilar to that of ASH.

      I wonder what will happen to the poor girl?

      • Joe L. says:

        And to think our “free” and “Progressive” countries’ governments continue to have friendly relationships with a country that maintains something as repressive as Sharia Law and “vice and virtue police.” Why more people aren’t outraged at this hypocrisy is beyond me. Hello? Anybody home?

    • beobrigitte says:

      That’s sad.
      Saudi Arabia’s vice and virtue police have arrested a young woman who was filmed in an archaeological site wearing a miniskirt and crop top, sparking a furious debate about the rights of women in the ultra-conservative kingdom.
      Vice and virtue police?

      One female Twitter user wrote in Arabic: “You violated the tradition and the basic law. You are shameless. Respect your homeland. Your parents did not educate you.”

      Another woman countered: “If she was a foreigner they would flirt with her, talk about her nice body and her beautiful eyes. But because she is Saudi they want to try her.”
      There must be something weird in Saudi water which causes complete lack of self control in males?
      Sure, I can see guys taking a second look at this lady, but foreigners usually see girls dressed like the lady and may utter a compliment. In general they have a lot more self control.
      What is wrong with getting an appetite but you eat at home?

  8. beobrigitte says:

    Plans to force all pornographic websites behind an age-verification wall will be formally announced by the government on Monday.
    Does the government mean that you have to press a “yes” button to confirm that you are 18+?

    How age verification will be deployed
    The government will leave this up to industry, which could opt for credit card authorisation, as gambling sites do. But any savvy teenager can borrow a credit card and if no transaction is required, the card owner may be none the wiser.

    There are also concerns credit card verification could create giant databases of people accessing pornography. Pornhub, the world’s most-visited pornographic website, had 64 million visitors per day in 2017, and the UK is its second biggest traffic driver. Such a database would be an obvious target for hackers, hoping to hold pornography sites to ransom. Just ask the owners of Ashley Madison, who recently offered customers $11 million in compensation after their details were published online by hackers.
    Oh! I thought porn sites were free?

    Will it make any discernible difference?
    The creation of the law was justified by stats compiled by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), which found that more than half of children and teenagers that accessed pornography “stumbled upon” it.

    Really? How come I have never stumbled upon a pornography site? I’m pretty sure you have to put certain words into your search engine.
    I’m not interested in porn sites and this regulation would go past me, except that in the back of my mind the thought that these regulations will be expanded to other areas is creeping in.

  9. children and teenagers that accessed pornography “stumbled upon” it

    “stumbled”…? That would be like how we , when we were kids, constantly stumbled over porn mags and blue videos? Despite all the videotheks enforcing strict Age Controls…
    It’s pretty much a given that teenagers, especially males, will always find a way to trip over porn..again and again and again…..ooooooohhhhhhhh

    • jaxthefirst says:

      And, of course, how we all “stumbled” across all the rude words in the dictionary just as soon as we worked out how a dictionary, well, worked. Funny, isn’t it that? Out of all those thousands and thousands of words …. ;)

      • LOL yes I had forgotten the ‘dictionary’ thing, and then there were the notorious ‘dirty’ bits in the Bible and those late night ‘French’ films on BBC2 …ah the joys of taking O Level French.

    • natepickering says:

      Right, just like I used to “stumble upon” the stack of Playboys under my dad’s mattress.

      • Or how we-disgusting little oiks that we were- ‘stumbled’ upon the fact that one might prise out the knots in the exterior wooden walls of the Girls Changing Rooms for the school swimming pool….amazing how often thereafter we stumbled and fell and landed with our eye directly over such a peep hole…I blame a lack of ability to tie shoe laces.

  10. Joe L. says:

    OT: Surprise, surprise. A new study claims artificial sweeteners may be correlated with obesity. For years “experts” told us that these man-made chemical compounds were safe, healthy, and were supposed to save us from the ever-so-deadly obesity-causing scourge: naturally-occurring sugars.

    Could Artificial Sweeteners Raise Your Odds for Obesity?

    These results are “kind of the opposite of what these products are intended for,” Azad said. “It should make people think and question whether they really need to be eating these artificial sweeteners.”

    “Right now, sugar is so much in the spotlight as the bad guy causing obesity, causing diabetes,” Azad said. “Everyone is told don’t eat sugar, period. So a reasonable assumption is, ‘OK, I’ll use a sugar substitute.’ This says maybe don’t make that immediate substitution before we have evidence.”

    This is uncannily reminiscent of what happened with butter. “Experts” hammered it home for years that man-made fats such as margarine were safer and healthier than butter. That is, until multiple studies found that man-made hydrogenated oils are actually bad for one’s health.

    When will tobacco see its turn for justice? There were many horrific reports of the side effects of Chantix/Champix, including numerous suicides and homicides. However, to the best of my knowledge, no studies were ever performed, and all bad press just seemed to abruptly stop a handful of years ago.

    This pattern leads me to believe these “experts” are paid off to facilitate killing off an old, established, stable, legacy industry (sugar, butter, tobacco, etc.) in order to make room for a new, previously unnecessary industry (artificial sweeteners, margarine, pharmaceuticals) with fast growth potential (due to manufactured fear) so that investors can simply get rich(er) quickly.

    • Vlad says:

      Agree with your line of thought. Applying it to tobacco, what I understand is that plain tobacco, smoked in various forms for over 5 thousand years, is being replaced for the past 50-60 years with more or less synthetic products such as filter and low tar cigarettes, vaping or HeatnotBurn gizmos.

      • Joe L. says:

        When it comes to my theory’s “industrial replacement” of tobacco, I think it can be narrowed down to Chantix/Champix and NRT products (i.e., pharmaceuticals). These unnecessary products were created and advertised to directly replace tobacco consumption exactly during the time that antismoking “research” and hysteria was hitting an all-time high.

        With regards to filtered and “low-tar” cigarettes, these “innovations” were responses by the tobacco companies to that era of pseudoscience. They were simply intended to counteract the antismoking propaganda of the time; they were not new products created by non-tobacco companies with the intention of replacing the tobacco industry.

        Vaping products (e-cigarettes) were created to replace tobacco as an industry, but they came out of left field and took the antismokers by surprise (hence why under most antismoking laws, they are considered “tobacco products” and included in bans).

        While I don’t know much about heat-not-burn products, they, like filters, appear to be a response from the tobacco industry in order to compete with vaping products.

        That’s my take. I’d love to hear more thoughts on this.

        • Rose says:

          With regards to filtered and “low-tar” cigarettes, these “innovations” were responses by the tobacco companies to that era of pseudoscience

          No they weren’t , these alterations were designed by the TC of the time who demanded that the tobacco companies adulterate their products voluntarily, apparently they had spent 5 whole years testing 50 experimental cigarette models and therefore knew best.

          National Cancer Advisory Board Release Statement on Nicotine and Tar Reduction 1975

          Frank J. Rauscher, Ph.D.
          Director of National Cancer Program
          Johnathan E, Rhoads, M.D
          Chairman, National Cancer Advisory Board
          Robert I. Levy, M.D.
          Director, National Heart and Lung Institute

          “are calling upon the tobacco industry to adopt newly developed techniques to make cigarettes less hazardous, so that each year thousands of Americans who persist in smoking will escape illness and premature death.”

          “The research conducted by the Smoking and Health Program of the National Cancer Institute and other national and international organizations has identified promising techniques for reducing toxic elements of smoke. These techniques fall into three general categories.

          Changes in Cigarette Construction
          The burning rate and the amount of air mixed with the smoke while the cigarette is being puffed can be altered by the use of cigarette paper of greater porosity, and by providing aerating mouthpieces.
          These methods reduce the amount of tobacco burned during inhalation, and by diluting the smoke recieved by the smoker make it less hazardous.”

          On page 5 they want dilution from “cellulose synthetic tobacco extenders, inorganic salts, clays and kaolin” in reconstituted tobacco sheets and suggest that tobacco can be “expanded, puffed or freeze dried so that less of it is required to fill each cigarette”
          https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=slxm0005

          Depressingly, their whole plan for a safer cigarette was to put less tobacco in it

          Light Cigarettes
          National Cancer Advisory Board Meeting 1974

          “Dr. Wynder felt that regulatory action should cover the entire spectrum of smoking dependent diseases and that if the 1974 average tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes (18.4 milligrams,and 1.27 milligrams respectively) are acceptable to the majority of smokers, there is no reason they should not be acceptable to all smokers.

          The labeling of cigarettes with a precise tar and nicotine content may not be specifically clear to the consumer, and a qualitative label of °light” may be allocated for all cigarettes below 12 milligrams of tar and 0.8 milligrams of nicotine, hoping that the consumer would find a more immediate signal for his choice.”

          “Dr. Wynder also voiced strong concern that legislative attempts at cigarette regulation would have little chance of being approved ,and expressed his favor for recommendations to encourage voluntary regulation by the cigarette industry.”
          https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=mkch0119

        • Joe L. says:

          Rose, I don’t disagree that filters and “low-tar” modifications were adulterations proposed by TC of the time (most likely to make smoking less enjoyable). However, we’re now seeing a trend toward entirely new, previously unnecessary products being invented and promoted using fear of established products in what appear to be attempts to completely supplant legacy industries.

        • Joe L. says:

          To frame it another way, we are no longer just seeing regulations imposed on these industries; in recent years we have been witnessing contrived competition created and promoted, as well.

  11. waltc says:

    Nothing’s new under the sun. In the US in the early 1920’s while alcohol prohibition was the law and the Anti-cigarette League was gaining momentum, women’s clothes were under assault:

    “The low-cut gowns, the rolled hose and short skirts are born of the devil and are carrying the present and future generations to chaos and destruction,” said the president of the University of Florida. In New York City prominent socialites (the Misses J Pierpont Morgan, Harriman, and James Roosevelt) launched a campaign against “an excess of nudity and improper ways of dancing.” while the YWCA did the same with national propaganda campaign aimed specifically at high school girls.

    In Philadelphia city elders formed a committee to design “a moral gown” and came up with something not too far from a burkha. In 1921 a bill in Utah provided fines and imprisonment for women who wore “skirts higher than 3 inches above the ankle” while Virginia proposed the same for wearing necklines “more than 3 inches below the throat.” In Ohio, the limit was 2 inches at the neck, and the hemline ban forbad “any female over the age of 14 from wearing a skirt which does not reach that part of the foot known as the instep, “while another proposed bill in Ohio banned the sale ” of any garment which unduly displays the lines of the female figure.”

    From the book “Only Yesterday” Frederick Lewis Allen:

  12. RdM says:

    ”any garment which unduly displays the lines of the female figure.”

    I imagine that Lucia Lacarra’s costume in this Bolero dance duet wouldn’t have passed muster in Ohio,then, let alone with the Saudi vice and virtue police now…

    • RdM says:

      I imagine that Lucia Lacarra’s costume in this Bolero dance duet wouldn’t have passed muster in Ohio then, let alone with the Saudi vice and virtue police now …

      A perfectly delightful enactment of a particular courtship in dance.

      Despite the comment on choreography, I liked the flutters to the treble notes.
      Subtle movements in time . . .

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s