RE: 'Victorian Households" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

TheHousehold -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 5:30:44 AM)

As I say, the fascination for me is the power structure and the formality.

The Victorians were very two-faced, prim and proper in public and quite depraved in private.  Just as we have to be in BDSM.  They submitted to a "natural order" of things, which we also try to pursue.  Plus, as I mention in my profile, the almost subliminal influence of a TV series on a youthful proto-Dom.

I just find that the mindset and the environment suit my needs and desires, and provide a template for how I would like to conduct my life.  A shorthand, if you will, which permits me to communicate how I would like to live in a few words without having to describe all the details.  I take from it what I need and want and enjoy, and set aside that which does not suit me.



StellaByStarlite -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 5:40:04 AM)

Hey Puella =)

There was definitely a dual nature to Victorian era sexuality that some might find appealing. Sex was "supposed" to be bad, dirty, hidden... and yet it wasn't. Look at Freud and his obsessions. The novel Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, or Dracula. Sex seethed during that period, in spite of the strict social conventions ( or most likely because of them).

When I see the term "Victorian household", that's exactly what I think of. Repression and desire warring over for supremecy. Proper ladies turned into sluts against their will. Twisted perversions boiling just below the surface. So maybe it's not so much the trappings of Victoriana as much as it is the paradox of it all.

Or maybe I need more coffee. Meh, damn time change.

Cheers,
Stella



puella -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 5:45:25 AM)

Okay, well I can certainly understand how you have woven things in to your lifestyle to meet very organic needs of your nature.

Why Victorian over Roman, or Elizabethan, or Colonial, or feudal households?  They all have strong patriarchal dominant cultures and some have very stylized etiquettes and niceties as well?  Was there something distinctly Victorian which has you most closely identifying with that era?  And are those things which are iconically victorian followed and observed in your daily life?

Please do understand that I am not being adversarial here, I am just trying to understand what you are both saying and apparently, living.

Thanks



puella -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 5:49:54 AM)

Hello Stella,

Thank you for that input... it is very interesting and I think it illustrates what is probably a very largely followed interpretation of 'Victoriana".  It sort of reminds me of the western perception of Harems.  It was so greatly stylized through western literature and art forms, both graphic and performing, that western society almost idealized it, and certainly had no real understanding of what a harem was either really like, or how it actually functioned.

I think a great deal of that has happened with this period as well.



Ph0enixF1re -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 5:56:44 AM)

Although I admire the OP use of a reference to prove her point, I must question the validity of using something written during the mid 1800's as the ground truth definition of a "Victorian Household."  History and Sociological texts tend to be written with all the inherant bias of the author.  Based on Acton's other works, he has a strong propensity to cast sexuality in strongly moral terms, implying that sex for anything other than reproduction is immoral.  I suppose this could be a result of the strong influence of the church.  Is it possible that this text served as a moral warning to the woman to attempt to minimize sexual conduct as much as possible and gave her a scientific justification for suppressing her sexual desires?  I am not saying that Acton is not correct, because I haven't done enough research on this particular subject to comment, but I would prefer to read the work of a researcher that was not immersed in the societal pressure of the time, as more of an impartial observer.

On a different point, if the dynamic is defined according to the people involved, they can live any fantasy or reality that suits them.  Age play, Daddy/daughter when sex is involved has been labled taboo by modern society, but it is a fullfilling lifestyle for many.  So, if I list victorian household as an interest, it is up to me to define with my partner how that will be run and what the expected behaviour will be.  I would only have to use that era as a basis, not as strict rules for conduct. 



puella -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 6:02:26 AM)

Hello, Phoenixfire

I only chose two quotes for the sake of brevity. You will note, I also quoted a notable woman of the period.  Nothing that I posted was anomalous of the period, in fact, it well represents the actual societal conditions and standards of the day... there is a reason the women's suffrage movement erupted on the tail end of the Victorian era, btw...




TheHousehold -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 6:11:02 AM)

I tend to the Victorian - or, more accurately, the Edwardian - simply because of the TV programme.

I am also fascinated by the period as a whole.  I have studied the Industrial Revolution and its social and economic effects, and the pre-World War I period was the pinnacle of that development.  The war changed everything, and so the period up to 1914 marks the end of an era.  For the better in some ways, and for the worse in others.  This does not have any particular relevance to my BDSM style, but perhaps I'm just that way inclined generally.





puella -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 6:14:14 AM)

Well, thank you for explaining what it means to you , TheHousehold... just out of curiosity, what program was it that you watched that was so influential to you?



StellaByStarlite -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 6:16:14 AM)

It's also a bit ironic that the Victorian era had levels of depravity that the bdsm scene now would never endorse. Syphillis ( sp?) was epedemic in the UK then, wasn't it?



MasterNdorei -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 10:59:29 AM)

Puella's post:
Ndorei,

I have very personal experience of a modern church, having lived in a convent as a Sister of Mercy for four years, though I hate to debunk all the masturbatory fantasies this supplies for so many, it is one of the most non sexual places in which I have ever spent time.  Contrary to popular fantasy, a convent is not a hot house for illicit girl on girl lovin.  I have a pet theory that it is easier (I am not saying it is right or more natural, mind you) for women to sublimate their sexuality and channel it out in other, non sexual ways, than men.

Sorry to disappoint!  hehe
***************************************
My response:
Puella,   Now you are talking about 2 entirely diferent things... your 4 year experience in a small section of the catholic church, and the entire church experience.    To coin your phrase, "contrary to popular fantasy" there are other churches besides catholic.   Since catholic is your forte... let's start there... Do you think because your experience was so sexless that nothing sexual occured in the Catholic church for the 4 years you were there? How relieved the choirboys must have been at your arrival! I am pretty sure there is a lawsuit somewhere in the world that disputes this claim. Maybe, in your infinate wisdom, you should step forward and try to set the court system straight too?   Hand me all the catholic literature and personal expereinces you want. It does not negate the experiences of others that contradict the propaganda.   Like it or not, there is more than one side to a coin. Your ideas and your opinions are only one small sliver of the whole experience. The same can be said of the Victorian experience.     Master's dorei



Archer -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 10:08:00 AM)

Certainly the patriarchy of the era is not unique however the level and nature of civility is most closely matched other than by the 1950's houshold. And the 1950's household was a watered down version of the Victorian era.

Now as to the end table argument a good start of the more accurate point that would follow it up.
How much Victorian influence is nessisary before each of us decide OK they are "Victorian" enough to use the name.
Truth be told the Victorian influence on the US development of fetish is pretty well documented. Bienvineu's (sp) Doctroate on the history of the lifestyle is considered the benchmark study on "Our (US)" fetish history.



SilverShadows -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/11/2007 2:22:32 PM)

Let me draw a parallel to the house I live in. It is only a parallel. I own a turn of the century house. I am quite proud of it. It is painted in bright colors such as they used at the time. It is full of Art new Nouveau  antiques and art. I collect dolls with hand made turn of the century costumes, silent picture post cards, etc.

However the interior has been gutted and modern plumbing and wiring put in. My kitchen uses electricity. The light fixtures are turn of the century but the wiring behind them is 1990s.

I am also a Goth, but I don’t throw slops out the window. I see a dentist and don’t live in terror of plague or out of control “knights.”

That said, how do I carry the Victorian Household into the 21st Century. My household has potentially four major levels of responsibility and authority.


1.     Family (Upstairs): These are the people with primary control to whom servants hold a duty to serve. They in turn have a responsibility to see to the care and maintenance of the servants. The later is a duty often neglected in the true Victorian household but was there.
a.      Household heads (Alpha): Traditionally male but in our household two Domme. All authority stems from them and they have the final word in all matters.
b.     Family Members (Beta): These have the rights of family members and live lives reasonably free from control of the house heads. I call these subs. They have a voice in household matters which is listened too, but not final authority.
2.     Servants (Downstairs): The primary function of these individuals is to provide for the comfort and needs of the upstairs household. The family is obligated to see to their care much as one is obligated to care for one’s livestock. My partner calls these slaves.
a.      Major Dommo/Butler/Head Housekeeper (Alpha): This is a person who is responsible for governing the servants for the mistresses. They are sub-servant to the family, but wield a great deal of authority with the servants.
b.     Servants (Beta): These people are responsible to all those above them and are responsible to their comfort and needs.

Perhaps this well better explain what I mean, not necessarily what others mean by the term Victorian Household.



Bonafied -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/19/2007 6:13:55 PM)

I enjoy rooting my conduct and behavior in the chivalrous romanticized Victorian and/or Edwardian era but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the intensity of depravity that also was its part. I simply chose those conducts and behaviors that offer intrigue and challenge.



bellanotte -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/19/2007 6:36:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Why Victorian over Roman, or Elizabethan, or Colonial, or feudal households?  They all have strong patriarchal dominant cultures and some have very stylized etiquettes and niceties as well?  Was there something distinctly Victorian which has you most closely identifying with that era?  And are those things which are iconically victorian followed and observed in your daily life?

Please do understand that I am not being adversarial here, I am just trying to understand what you are both saying and apparently, living.

Thanks


puella.... I think it may be merely the fact that CM provides on their interest list the term "Victorian household" rather than "Victorian-inspired".... the latter might be more accurate but unless you want a huge profile you do have to abbreviate some things.

As to the choice of the time periods.... perhaps if CM listed on the interest list.. "Edwardian".. "Colonial"... "Feudalism"... etc, people might very well choose those.

When faced with limited options, some must make do, so even if the term is not 100% technically correct, the spirit holds. The preferences are there because detailing one's interpretation of Victorian... then detailing one's interpretation of "fisting"... and detailing one's interpretation of everything else.... would make for more bandwidth than CM has.

Just a thought!
belle




SternMaster3 -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/19/2007 9:06:49 PM)

My own take on a "Victorian" household is -  a social order of extended repression under an indominable pateriarchal authority.

With the wealth being created from the industrial revolution, Victorians represented the haves and have nots in the extreme.

The haves were lead by male petty dictators who ruled their family with dogged inflexibility in just about every aspect of their lives from politics to sexuality to clothing.

The have-nots were forced to exist as meanials and servants, at the beck and call of their Masters.

Along the way sexual hypcrisy, child corsetting and female subservience became the norm.

Whilst some aspects of a Victorian household might be attractive to some Doms and their subs, the strict rules of conduct and ettiquette, family corporal punishment, female subservience (being confused with submissiveness), dressing rituals of corsets, underwear and domestic uniforms; I for one am happy we have moved forward form such repression and hypocrisy.

I am happy to take on and provide some of the "ritualistic trappings" of a Victorian household but do not think casting a servant girl out into the storm because the underfootman got her pregnant is a response I would ever be comfortable being associated with. Nor would I be happy subjecting my offspring to a range of sexual privations for the want of social conformity or to stop an outbreak of hairy palms.

Today, a true "Victorian" household is a myth. Go for the trappings, fine but some aspects of that era are best left back in the history books



Evanesce -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/19/2007 9:26:07 PM)

I've spent the better part of the last couple years studying life in the Victorian era (1837-1901).  In particular, the lives of Victorian women have been a subject of special study, along with etiquette. 
 
In terms of female sexuality of the period, while William Acton posits that sexual activity is neither desired nor enjoyed by the female, Auguste Debay says almost the complete opposite, going so far as to declare that women whose sexual appetite is stronger than that of their husbands need to "be temperate in the pleasures of marriage," in order to maintain the "freshness of her charms."  He further states a belief that failure to engage in sexual activity will result in an eventual decline in overall health.  Of course, we know this to be untrue today, but beliefs back then were much different.  But I digress...
 
In Victorian times, married women were property, the same as homes and furniture were property.  A single woman could support herself and keep what she earned.  She could amass wealth and property.  But the moment she married, all of that became her husband's property, and should he tire of her, she could be put out with nothing.  Not even her clothing and toiletries belonged to her.  Women of wealth lived their lives in gilded cages.  Poor women lived hard lives, working long hours for little pay.  And that pay belonged to their husbands.
 
The Kaptin and I list "Victorian household" as something of interest, because that is the type of relationship we've worked towards.  While some aspects of Victorian living must be adapted to today's standards and beliefs (not to mention our own needs and idiosyncracies), the protocol and etiquette of the time is absolutely within our abilities to replicate and uphold.  And we rather like the "gilded cage" concept.



SusanofO -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/19/2007 9:28:09 PM)

Interesting passage, puella. I think the notion of the female, or submissive person having to be "taken" (seemingly against their will, even though it wouldn't be out-right rape, probably) that might appeal to some.

Like Archer and some others, I always just sort of considered it a more extreme version of a 1950s household, in terms of D/s roles, with a more protocol added in (depending on the preferences of those involved). I think also it is the use of all of those corsets on females, and the vision of a man in a stove-pipe hat and stuffy suit turning a female over his knee and caning her, for instance, that can get some people really going, hehe. I am curious about how this would be to experience in real life as well.

- Susan



Vendaval -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/20/2007 12:15:51 AM)

I am curious about a couple of things, were arranged marriages the norm
in the middle and upper classes during the Victorian Era?
And were the husband and wife close in age or was the man
usually quite a bit older?



Evanesce -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/20/2007 3:30:40 PM)

quote:

I am curious about a couple of things, were arranged marriages the norm
in the middle and upper classes during the Victorian Era?
And were the husband and wife close in age or was the man
usually quite a bit older?


While not necessarily "arranged," per se, marriages were often based on social status, and poorer women would often reject suitors for whom they felt a particular fondness, in favor of one who might better provide for them.  In the wealthier homes, women would certainly be pressured to make a socially/financially advantageous marriage, and severely discouraged from marrying "beneath their station."  As far as age goes... in everything I've read thus far, I don't see pairings of older men with much younger women as being any more prevalent than they are today.
 
One thing I've found curious, though, is several mentions of suitors offering money to the fathers in exchange for their daughters.  It almost seems like a sort of reverse dowry, but I've not been able to find any detailed explanation of how and/or why this would be done.



Vendaval -> RE: 'Victorian Households" (3/20/2007 6:50:44 PM)

Thank you, Denise.  That sounds familiar from the books I have read over the years. 
Status and money were the more important considerations for marriage. And the parents
seemed to have decided on a suitable husband for their daughters, rather than let the young
women marry for romantic love.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125