And thus we have the origins of carpal tunnel syndrome ;) LOL
I did not read the link but I did see a program about Medical treatment of Hysteria on A&E years ago. It was mainly for young widows; don't remember mention of Nuns! A doctor actually did invent or introduce the vibrator because his hand was getting tired.
Those ladies lying there with their hats on just cracked me up.
Yo, it's supposed to be a lighthearted comedy, not a documentary. If you watched the movie with pen in hand to take notes on history, constantly referencing your side board copy of "The Essays on the Theory of Sexuality" breathlessly awaiting a crosswalk into "The Time Machine", then I fear you are suffering from hysteria.
Yeah. If you want a documentary, watch "Passion & Power, the Technology of Orgasm." That's a documentary made about the vibrator. This is a rom-com w/ a historical background.
Sweetheart...stop, listen to yourself and then promptly shut your mouth!!!
Ignoring previous poster's valid arguments does not change the fact that you are wrong and talking rubbish!!!
Simund Freud only published most of his work on sexuality AFTER 1900!!!!!! Therefore, since this movie is set in the 1880s, if the movie had somehow sited it or made reference to it, it would be anachronistic and WRONG historically AND factually!!!
You clearly do not have an understanding either of the history of science, medicine OR of social movements around WOMEN'S RIGHTS (sugar, if you think that any issue pertaining to women is 'feminist/feminism', then you are probably not getting, or are not going to anytime soon, get laid very often).
Women's Suffrage had been a lively part of social and political debate for at least a decade before the time that the movie is set in. There is NOTHING that is talked about, views expressed or any other opinion voiced about the position of women in this movie that is even remotely exlusively "modern".
If women being institutionalised and being given forced hysterectomies is not serious enough for you to warrant as a worthy reason to ban the diagnosis of hysteria in women, then you need to rethink what it is to have inalienable rights as a human being.
You clearly also have very little understanding of Sigmund Freud's work. At heart, Freud could not break his naturalised view of women as nurturing and mothers at heart. Not progressive at all in terms of hysteria. If they were horny he would have said that it was part of their innate sexual drive and would have sanctioned those emotions. If a woman dare tell Freud she did not want to have children or to be a mother, he would have had her institutionalised as delinquent and insane.
Pick up some proper books before you make silly, generalised and uninformed comments please!
"(sugar, if you think that any issue pertaining to women is 'feminist/feminism', then you are probably not getting, or are not going to anytime soon, get laid very often)."
No one implied this "sugar", but if your determination of the truth is guided by lay possibilities, I imagine this is why you hold your view points.
Have you noticed how it's often the people who know least about a particular subject who often have the loudest opinions? This often seems the case with know-it-all heterosexual white males of a certain age, often of the Tea Party persuasion. Perhaps the application of an electronic vibrator to certain parts of the anatomy would help to relieve them of all that hot air.
How quickly you drop your pretense of dispassionate intellectual rigor and sink to the gutter! (I still say a session with the vibrator would do you a world of good.)
The more desperately a poster claims to be an "intellectual superior," the more dubious the assertion. Henceforth, bluesdoctor will be known as Captain_Blowhard!
You're welcome. But I suppose we should let up on Captain_Blowhard. After all, he is our intellectual superior. (It must be true...because he says so!)
Well Granville was 47 in 1880 and not a fresh-faced young man like Dancy. He appears to have had no connection with anybody called Charlotte Dalrymple and married one Mary Ormerod. Having said that I thought this was a sweet little film,not salacious at all,and the great - and always under-rated - Georgie Glen was a hoot.