Bayou Renaissance Man

... according to Jennie Breeden and her "The Devil's Panties" comic strip.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at her Web page.

"Renewed our vows".  Gigglesnort!

Peter

Click over to this tweet by Flappr and watch the brief video provided (it's just over a minute long).

Dang, it got dusty in here all of a sudden . . .

Peter

Today's award goes to Artemio Sanchez-Ortega of New Mexico, who decided to demonstrate his burning passion for his former girlfriend literally rather than figuratively.  A full report may be found here, or you can simply watch the video below.

I'm very grateful that there were no casualties among his intended victims.  I hope the police catch him soon, before he has any more bright ideas.  Of course, he could try exercising matchless ingenuity . . .

Peter

Courtesy of a link at Larry's place, I was led to this article.

Six out of ten meals consumed in British homes are eaten in front of the television, it emerged today.

Research has revealed that millions of families have all but abandoned the dining table and now retire to the sofa to enjoy their meal.

And as proof they are aware their TV dinners are not perhaps the best way, most admit they are guilt ridden by the bad habit.

A startling one third of us don't even make conversation with our dinner companions while dining in front of the television.

Researchers found the average dinner table dodger tucks into meals in front of their favourite programmes at least six times a week.

The study also found that 45 per cent don't actually enjoy the food they're eating in front of the box, while many opt for easy ready meals and takeaways.

There's more at the link.

I agree that not eating together, not paying attention to each other, is a very negative aspect of many modern families.  However, there's an easy answer, if only people would take it:

GET RID OF THE TELEVISION!

My wife and I took that decision when we married, and I don't think we've ever regretted it.  We don't own a television at all.  If something comes along that we really want to watch, we can either get it over the Internet, or buy DVD's of it, or look on streaming video sites - all of which can be watched on our computer screens.  Major sporting events like the Superbowl are usually watched with friends at one of their homes, with everybody bringing snacks and all of us making snarky comments as we watch developments unfold.  It becomes a social occasion rather than a goggle-box preoccupation.

What say you, readers?  Is the TV a center of your home life, or is it something you can take or leave as the mood suits?  How many of you also don't bother to have a TV at all?  Please let us know in Comments.  This might be an interesting discussion.

Peter

Ladies, are you tired of your husband?  There's getting divorced, and then there's . . .

(Click either image for a larger view.)

Given the casualty rate among Ukrainian service personnel, that might be regarded as the equivalent of spousal murder!  Divorce, Ukrainian style???

Peter

I was touched to read about a husband's tribute to his deceased wife in Japan.

In a poem she left behind at her bedside, Yoko Miyamoto prayed for just one healthy week to do some final things for her husband.

“God, please, get me out of this hospital room and give me seven healthy days,” Miyamoto wrote at the start of her poem titled “Seven Days.” “I want to stand in the kitchen on the first day and cook a lot of dishes. I will cook gyoza dumplings and ‘nikumiso’ (miso-flavored braised ground pork), your favorites. I will also have curry and stew frozen for you.”

Yoko, who had been battling cancer, died in January last year at age 70 before her wish could be granted.

Her husband, Eiji, 72, felt compelled to write the poem in a post published in The Asahi Shimbun’s “Koe” (voices) column, thanking his wife for their 52 years together.

. . .

After the post was published, it unexpectedly generated a huge response and was shared by about 190,000 people on social networking sites. Their story was turned into a book in the summer last year and went on to garner even more sympathetic responses ... The poem was also adapted into a song, which was released as a CD single in June this year.

. . .

“The last conversation I had with Yoko was when we had dinner in her hospital room and she said, ‘You should eat first,’ and then I said, ‘OK, I will,” Miyamoto recalled. “She fell asleep and died at dawn. If I had known it would be our last meal together, I would have wanted to say, ‘thank you.’ ”

“Thank you” was also Yoko’s last message to Eiji.

“When I was putting away her belongings after she died, I found a notebook,” he added.

Yoko wrote in a meticulous manner: “It has been fun days since I met you … Thank you for the long time together. I have always loved you so much.”

There's more at the link.

May Yoko rest in peace, and may her husband join her when his time comes.

Love can be a blessing for far more than just the people involved.  By sharing his wife's last poem, Mr. Miyamoto has blessed many people, as the response to his article shows.  Even though I live many thousands of miles away from him, it's been a blessing to me, too:  and I hope, by sharing it here, it'll be a blessing to you as well, dear readers.

I'll let St. Paul have the last word.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;  does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;  does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;  bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails.

. . .

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Peter

Cedar Sanderson e-mailed me the link to this Valentine's Day gift via the San Antonio Zoo in Texas.

Yes, it's a hippo dung scented candle!  The zoo describes it as follows.

Did you know, hippo poop is the cologne of the hippo world and is used to impress potential mates?

So, if you’re looking to turn up the heat and attract that special someone, our poop-scented Hippo-Love Candle is the rizz you need. The scent of seduction will have potential mates flocking to you like never before.

This one-of-a-kind candle captures our famous hippo, Timothy’s, signature scent of hippo poop. Embrace the power of nature this Valentine’s season and give this memorable gift that will certainly take you from date to mate.

Having been in the presence of far too many hippopotami for comfort, particularly at close quarters, I'm here to tell you that I've never seen a female hippo all a-twitter over the scent (?) of a male hippo's dung in the water.  "The cologne of the hippo world" indeed!  Hippo dung is very useful to feed small fish and fertilize underwater vegetation, but I somehow don't see it as an aphrodisiac.  Wikipedia says of their behavior:

Hippos engage in "muck-spreading" which involves defecating while spinning their tails to distribute the faeces over a greater area. Muck-spreading occurs both on land and in water and its function is not well understood. It is unlikely to serve a territorial function, as the animals only establish territories in the water.

Nevertheless, if flung dung strikes you as romantic, you can pick up a hippo-dung-scented candle from the Zoo's shop.  Personally, I'd think that a hunka hunka burning dung would produce the very opposite effect from that (presumably) desired . . . but what do I know?

Peter

From Larry Lambert:

25% of women in America are being treated for some form of mental illness. That means that 75% of them are running around untreated.

No comment!

Peter

The BBC reports:

A bride with a rare disorder affecting her mobility surprised her husband-to-be by walking down the aisle on their wedding day in East Yorkshire.

Carrie Redhead, 27, was born with the digestive condition intestinal lymphangiectasia, or Waldmann's disease, which causes the loss of special proteins from sufferers' intestines.

Two years ago her condition deteriorated, leaving her having to use a wheelchair.

But at their wedding ceremony in Faxfleet in October, her fiance, Joel Redhead, had no idea she was determined to walk down the aisle.

With a video of Mrs Redhead's walk having now been viewed online millions of times, she says she wants to inspire and empower people facing similar situations.

The BBC's own video is at the link, but I can't embed it here.  Here's another news report that I found on YouTube, including an interview with the newlyweds.

Amazing courage and determination from the bride.  You can see for yourself in the wedding sequence how her husband had to wipe tears from his eyes as she hobbled towards him on her father's arm.

God bless them both.  May their example help many other people who are facing similar challenges.

Peter

Divemedic shows us this . . . meme?  Poster?  Graphic?  I dunno.

I refuse to be guilt-tripped by science-deniers who ignore medical, scientific and biological fact.  They're the problem.  And no, the rest of us don't have to change just because they say so.  Those who wish to date trans women are welcome to do so.  Those who don't, are also free to choose.  Relationships can't be compelled, and those who try to do so are just as bigoted and sectarian as anyone else who wants to force their views on those who don't agree with them.

Hatred's got nothing to do with it at all.

Peter

After my first post this morning, it seems we're on a crocodile roll today.  UPI reports:

The owner of a crocodile farm in Australia said mating season started early this year thanks to the males being put into the amorous mood by the presence of military helicopters.

John Lever … said the bulls among his stable of about 3,000 crocodiles were sent into a mating frenzy when a Chinook helicopter came in low over the farm.

. . .

He said one helicopter came in low to get a good look at the animals, and the result was a flurry of reptile romance.

"All of the big males got up and roared and bellowed up at the sky, and then after the helicopters left they mated like mad," Lever told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "There's something about the sonic waves that really gets them stirred up."

There's more at the link.

Hmmm… a Chinook helicopter?  Methinks we'd better rename it a Chi-nookie!

Peter

... here are two items of interest.  Both deal with sensitive issues, and may be offensive to some readers, so I suggest you don't read further if you want to avoid such difficulties.  Also, if you haven't yet read yesterday's article, I suggest you do so before continuing.

First, here's a TEDx talk by Gail Dines titled "Growing Up in a Pornified Culture".  It shows very clearly the sort of society in which our young ladies are growing up - and it's terrifying to anyone of a more traditional morality.  If you're a parent, you should watch the whole thing.

Next, an article that appeared this morning at The Free Press titled "The Woman Who Stood Up to the Porn Industry—and Won".  Here's an excerpt.

Not only has Schlegel curbed the billion-dollar online porn industry for the first time in history, forcing websites to protect kids in Louisiana and pull out of at least three U.S. states, she has offered a legislative blueprint for others across the country.

“I am truly humbled to see that we began a movement that has swept the country and began a long overdue conversation about how we can protect kids from hardcore pornography,” she says. 

Schlegel’s crusade started back in December 2021. She had listened to The Howard Stern Show and 21-year-old pop sensation Billie Eilish talking about online porn. Eilish told Stern that she began watching “abusive” images at the age of 11, and that this had warped her sense of how to behave during sex and what women’s bodies look like.

“No vagina looks like this,” Eilish told Stern. “I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn.”

Schlegel was struck by Eilish’s openness, that she was “just a young girl being vulnerable enough to share those details with the world.”

The singer’s story also chimed with Schlegel’s professional experience both as a sex addiction therapist and a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in the foster care system. She knew the issues facing young clients raised on unlimited free online porn—the decoupling of intimacy from sex; the inability to get aroused without porn playing in the background; a warped idea of what your partner actually wants. 

“If you’ve never had your first kiss but you’ve seen hardcore pornography, it’s going to mold the way you view sexuality,” Schlegel said. “You’re not dealing with a fully formed adult brain that's like, ‘Oh, so I shouldn’t strangle my partner?’ ” 

If Schlegel understood the damage pornography causes, she also knew how easy it is for children to access it. And she realized that now she was a state legislator, she was uniquely positioned to do something about it. 

There's more at the link.  Recommended reading.

Both of these resources help to explain why modern relationships are so sexualized, and how they exclude so many traditional aspects of femininity and the marital bond that we discussed yesterday.  I hope they help make sense of the mess so many of our relationships are in.

Peter

I recently read an article in The Atlantic titled "Nobody Should Care About a Woman’s ‘Body Count’".  The original is paywalled, but a non-paywalled version may be found here.  I'm not going to excerpt it here, but I recommend reading it for yourself if the subject interests you.  Basically, the author is arguing that it doesn't matter how many sexual partners a woman has had, and it shouldn't affect her as far as desirability is concerned.

I'd argue that it does, indeed, matter:  and that it also matters as far as men are concerned.  Admittedly, my viewpoint is conditioned by my Christian faith and having many years' experience as a pastor in dealing with relationships, good and bad.  I will add that it wasn't always that way.  In my younger days, I had relationships that I now regret, that were more "what can I get out of it?" rather than "what can I put into it?".  I fear many of us can say the same.  I wish we could have greater wisdom when we were young . . . it would avoid a lot of the damage we do to ourselves, and others, in those "salad days, when we were green in judgment".  Unfortunately, life's not like that.

The huge damage inflicted on meaningful relationships by the "hookup culture" is that it's taken what is (or should be) the most important bonding experience a couple can share, and turned it into a cheap commodity, a voyeur's pornographic fulfilment, a search for new toys to give a more "profound" physical experience.  For centuries - indeed, millennia - the sexual relationship was considered the physical expression of an existing spiritual and societal bond or "contract".  Whether in a romantic relationship or an arranged one, the contract of marriage was supposed to precede the act of marriage (i.e. sex).  Admittedly, this was often honored more in the breach than in the observance, but the theory nevertheless held sway, and governed human society for a very, very long time, no matter what culture or nationality or religion was involved.  The sexual revolution stood that theory on its head.  Sex was no longer a means of expressing that pre-existing bond.  Instead, it became divorced from the bond, becoming no more than a casual encounter that might, or might not, lead to something more intimate in the mental and spiritual sense.

I think the general acceptance of that divorce, and the "commoditization" of sex, have caused immense damage to human relationships.  It's long been said that a woman can't give herself sexually to a man without inevitably committing a part of her personality, her very being, in the exchange.  I know modern psychologists and anthropologists decry this, but in my pastoral experience, I'd say there's a lot of truth in that old saw.  I think women do, inevitably, commit a lot more of themselves when things get physical than men do.  After all, the woman is letting someone else enter her.  She's involved in an act that, absent external chemical or other intervention, is supposed to open the way to new life growing within her.  In other words, the creative aspect of sex is something intrinsic to her reaction and response.  It can't be otherwise, because only she can bear a child.  Men can participate in the initial act, but they don't face the prospect of carrying another living human being inside them for nine months.  Inevitably, for them, sex is more physical, less mental and spiritual, less bound-up in creation and more in recreation.

I've been struck by the number of women who've expressed regret to me about having had too many casual sexual encounters in their younger days.  It's far from infrequent.  They speak of having "wasted intimacy on those who didn't deserve it", or "gone along to get along", or submitted to the "if it feels good, do it" zeitgeist.  Now, in later life, they wish they hadn't, and feel that the intimacy they've achieved with a long-term partner just isn't the same as if they'd been less experienced and more committed.  They've seldom linked that to the creative aspect of sex from a woman's perspective, but I think that relationship can be demonstrated - at least to my satisfaction.  Others may differ, of course.

Even men, if they're honest, will agree that there's a vast difference between "having sex" and "making love".  The former can be impartial, almost agnostic, a mere exchange of bodily fluids, sometimes a commercial transaction rather than a human interaction.  The latter is a giving of self combined with a receiving of the gift of self from another, an exchange, a sharing, a duality.  I had a conversation once with a woman who was far more sexually "liberated" than I was.  She challenged me to describe how making love to my wife was any different from making love to any woman.  I thought for a moment, then answered that I wouldn't be "making love" with someone I didn't actually love.  The physical act of sex, under those conditions, would not be "love-making" at all.  On the other hand, making love with the woman I love was like coming home.  I belonged there.  When she welcomed me into her body, she welcomed me into her soul as well, and renewed her presence in mine at the same time.  The other woman thought for a long, long moment in silence, and then said, with tears in her eyes, "I've never known anything like that... but now I wish I did."

The tragedy is that the more we devalue sex, the more we make it merely another physical transaction instead of something soul-deep, the less it can be a pathway to that level of intimacy.  I've worked with couples where one or both partners had previously had literally hundreds of sexual encounters with others before they married.  Almost universally, I found that their own physical relationship lacked any aspect or feeling of union, of becoming one spiritually and mentally as well as physically.  It was effectively no more than mutual masturbation, because they had reduced sex to that level before they met each other.  They no longer were able to give themselves in the act of marriage, because it was no longer the act of marriage at all.  It was just another thing, something to do to pass the time or feel good before tackling other, more important things.  Other couples who'd had dozens, rather than hundreds, of prior sexual relationships experienced something of the same difficulty, although to a lesser extent than those who'd "burned out" their sexuality by going to extremes.  As a rule of thumb, I found that couples who'd had few romantic and (particularly) physical relationships before marriage found their marital bond (including the physical) much more meaningful and fulfilling than others who'd been more "experienced" ("jaded" or "burned-out" might be better terms).

Notice that I haven't brought God or religion into this at all.  These appear to be human actions and reactions regardless of faith.  When a couple has religious beliefs as well, the latter appear to reinforce and strengthen and elevate their bond to a whole new level, and I'm profoundly grateful to have been able to help some of them achieve that.  However, even in the absence of faith, the basic make-up of the human psyche appears to be consistent.  Abuse intimacy, and one can no longer experience it to its fullest extent.  At its worst, one may no longer be able to experience it at all.  The number of sexual partners one has had - whether one is male or female - is therefore, in my experience, a significant indicator of the likelihood - or otherwise - of potential or actual problems in a subsequent permanent relationship.

I know my views will be controversial, particularly to those with a more liberated perspective.  Therefore, I invite readers to contribute their thoughts in Comments.  I think we might all benefit from a wider discussion of this issue.

Peter

When it comes to relationships, particularly romantic ones, as a pastor and chaplain I've often found myself between a rock and a hard place.  There's the theory, and the Biblical injunction, that "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder".  Divorce, according to classical moral theology, is a no-no;  you make it work together.  However, this presumes that both sides are willing to make it work, and are prepared to make sacrifices and adapt in order to achieve that.  I've seen far too many relationships where that hasn't happened;  where one side of the relationship has been actively destructive (whether physically, or mentally, or spiritually, or a combination thereof) to themselves and/or the other person involved.  That goes double when violence becomes a factor.  There's simply no place for physical violence in a relationship.  If that arrives, the victim should leave immediately, and recognize that there's no rescuing or salvaging that relationship.  If there is, I've never found a way that works.  Yes, I know that flies in the face of the Biblical message - but it's the only practical solution I know.

This doesn't just apply to romantic relationships.  I'm sure many of us have had friends or acquaintances who try to assume an ever more dominant and important role in our lives, to the point where they consume time and resources we really need for something else.  Others may differ from us to such an extent that they disturb our thinking, making us lose focus.  Some may be "clingy", taking a lot from us but giving back very little.  All these are unhealthy elements in our lives that can cause major disruptions, if we allow them to.

Karl Denninger foresees (as I do, and as many others do) that hard times are coming for all of us.  He warns that relationships can be the cornerstone to survival, or lead to our destruction.  Emphasis in original.

... if you have a stable relationship with another person and you are BOTH healthy (mentally AND physically) then recognize that two can always live more-cheaply than two ones and that one plus one is at least two and can be, if you're synergistic in some ways, more than 2.  As such if you have that  sort of relationship and you can make it deeper and better do it and avoid actions that might degrade or even destroy what you have.  Coming through adversity together with common purpose between two people who find each other before things go sideways and your "chooser" gets skewed by events who can be focused on each other and where other forced associations are not present and thus you can make major choices as a couple without mandated outside interference (e.g. neither of you currently has children from a former relationship) can forge a bond like no other.  I never achieved this and I'm 60 now -- but that doesn't mean you can't when you're 30, 25 or younger and if you can its absolutely worth it and can pay personal, incalculable dividends for decades.

But -- and this is extremely important -- one minus one is always zero and can be less than zero if one or both of you is unstable and prone to destruction.  Instability isn't just about "do I have a job" either; the worst instabilities are mental and emotional in their basis.  You can go ahead and make all the excuses you want for this and most people will but its absolutely true.  Cutting off a destructive influence can be very hard, particularly if you have a romantic involvement with that person but plenty of people get dragged down the toilet with someone who is hellbent on destroying themselves.  In times of plenty or if you have a lot you can get away with trying to make it better and if and when you fail bail off and avoid being destroyed yourself.  When times are tough and resources thin if you're the sane one and the other isn't you're much-more likely to get ruined by that same attempt simply because the margins are much thinner and they apply without fear or favor to everyone.  Always remember that nobody ever changes for anyone else in reality -- they only do it for themselves and both men and women frequently believe that not to be true and that they can "fix" the other's issues.

There's more at the link.  The whole article is worth reading.

I endorse Mr. Denninger's warning.  If your romantic relationship isn't as it should be right now, work on it until it's fixed.  That's really, really important, because when you add stress to that relationship, it can fracture and collapse.  That's the last thing you want to happen when everything else around you is in a state of flux.  Your marriage/partnership should be the bedrock on which both of you stand to face all the other troubles of life.  Absent that bedrock, you have a relationship built on sand - and we all know what happens to them.

The same applies, in a lesser way, to our friendships and acquaintanceships.  There are those who help us, who strengthen us, who build us up, and for whom we do the same.  They're valuable.  Treasure them, and nurture your relationship with them.  Then . . . there are those who are whiny, and clingy, and who drag us down into the mess they've made of their own lives.  We have to learn and re-learn the old, hard lesson that you can't live someone else's life for them.  You can't rescue those who turn around and fall into situations where they again need rescue.  Somewhere, sooner or later, you have to break those negative chains - and it's a lot easier to do so when the rest of your life is still on an even keel.  In the midst of economic and/or social and/or political chaos, it's a whole lot harder - but it's even more important to cut off such distractions and concentrate on the people and needs that are really important to us.  Better deal with such matters before they become so distracting that they threaten our well-being, even our survival.

Oh - and if you've prepared for hard times, and have an emergency cash reserve and backup food supplies and a stash of essential gear, be very, very careful who you tell about them.  Our "needy" hangers-on will be the first to come running to us, demanding that we share what we've prepared, because they haven't made any such preparations themselves.  They'll tell us that we "owe" it to them, that we should share what we have regardless of whether or not that will mean hardship for ourselves and our families.  The answer has to be a simple, flat "No!"  They may scream and cry and carry on, pleading need, accusing us of being selfish and hard-hearted . . . and it doesn't matter.  When things get tough, our every decision is an investment in our future.  Those who are important to us get that investment.  Those who are not, don't.  It's as simple as that - and as ruthless.  Altruism is a fine thing, and we should all practice it to the extent possible, but not to the extent of jeopardizing our own survival, our own relationships, our own core necessities.  If we do, everyone loses, most of all ourselves.  Remember Jim Quinn's modern (1994) parable of the ant and the grasshopper, and learn from it.  (However, his version no longer applies only to one side of the political aisle.  Both major political parties have been infected by the same disease.  Just look at Congress, and you'll see for yourself.)

Cherish, guard and build up your good relationships.  They'll make all the difference in the world when the chips are down.

Peter

This is the sort of heart-warming story that makes me go "Aaaawwwww!" and feel warm and fuzzy all over.

A Southern California couple is going viral online because of a gift their daughter gave them at her wedding.

Chris and Jacque Ford secretly eloped at 18 years old in 1998.

“We just wanted to be together,” Jacque told KTLA.

Chris had joined the Air Force, and the young and in love couple didn’t want to live apart.

Skip ahead to the present day, and their 22-year-old daughter, Zoe, just tied the knot in a gorgeous backyard wedding.

The video, which has amassed over 3 million views on TikTok, shows the moment when Zoe took the microphone during her reception to thank everyone and surprised her parents.

“They never got their own first dance, so we would like to give that to you, as a ‘thank you,’ for always being there for us and supporting us,” she said.

Gasps could be heard in the crowd, and tears were flowing as the couple officially had their first dance to the song “Your Song,” by Ellie Goulding.

There's more at the link, including a video of the dance.

That was a wonderful thought, and a beautiful gesture.  Kudos to Zoe and her husband for surrendering "their" first dance to her parents.  I'm sure there wasn't a dry eye in the place.

Peter

From Moses Lambert on MeWe, an oldie but still a goodie.  Thanks, Moses, for reminding me of it.

A Marine General was about to start the morning briefing to his staff. While waiting for the coffee machine to finish brewing, the General decided to pose a question to all assembled.

He explained that his wife had been a bit frisky the night before, so he failed to get his usual amount of sound sleep.

He posed the question of just how much of sex was “work” and how much of it was “pleasure”?

A Major chimed in with 75%-25% in favor of work.

A Captain said it was 50%-50%.

A Lieutenant responded with 25%-75% in favor of pleasure, depending upon his state of inebriation at the time.

There being no consensus, the General turned to the Private First Class making the coffee, and asked for his opinion.

Without any hesitation, the young PFC responded, “Sir, it has to be 100% pleasure.”

The General was surprised and, as you might guess, asked why.

“Well, sir, if there was any work involved, the officers would have me doing it for them.”

The room fell silent.

God Bless the enlisted man.

No s***, Sherlock!

Peter

As part of my ongoing research for future books (in this case, the Annals of Ash), I've been looking into the history of mail-order brides in the far West.  Sadly, there seems to be very little authentic, accurate historical material available in modern reference works.  The vast (overwhelming!) majority of books out there appear to be romance novels on the subject, most of which are (from a factual and literary perspective) pure trash.  I'm thoroughly unimpressed.

However, there are contemporary accounts that sometimes make me laugh out loud.  Some are described in an article from "Canada's History", published in 2016.  I was sufficiently amused that I thought you might enjoy part of it this morning, instead of an excerpt from a book.  Here goes!

CRINOLINE CARGO

The arrival in 1862 of a ship full of single women eased the hearts of British Columbia’s lovesick bachelors — and lined the pockets of B.C.’s future premier.

* * * * *

“The girls are coming! The girls are coming! They'll be here any day!” So screamed the headlines of Victoria's British Colonist in September of 1862. The Tynemouth, forever after known as the “bride ship” was on its way. For Colonist publisher Amor De Cosmos — a man with a strong sense of the ridiculous who would eventually go on to become British Columbia's second premier — it was a perfect opportunity to attract male readers, not to mention advertisers.

The situation was this: To the horror of the British government, Queen Victoria, and the Anglican Church, the glittering-with-gold valleys of the mighty Fraser River were home to 30,000 people, of whom very few were women, or British, for that matter. Most were single, young American men drawn in by the gold rush. How to make them British? Thus the gift they were about to receive from London — a cargo of sixty young women from Britain.

Organized by the Columbia Emigration Society under the auspices of the Anglican Church, this was not the first shipment of brides to the nascent colony. At around the same time the Tynemouth was on its way from Britain, the Seaman's Bride, a ship from Australia with about twenty women on board destined for Victoria, docked at San Francisco. “And what did the young Yankees do?” De Cosmos complained in the Colonist. “Alas! They captured the affections of the girls.... The vessel came on to this port (Victoria) without even a petticoat aboard to delight the eyes and cheer the palpitating hearts of the Victorians.”

De Cosmos’s interest in the bride ship may not have been simply commercial. The Nova-Scotia-born future politician, whose original name was William Alexander Smith, had a keen interest in unifying what were then two British Crown colonies — one on Vancouver Island and one on mainland British Columbia — as well as the other British North American colonies, and joining them into a single nation. At the time, Americans dominated the West Coast colonies, and some saw it as inevitable that the United States would eventually take over the region. De Cosmos, a smart, dapper, if eccentric man, who stood out for always being well-dressed, perhaps perceived the introduction of the British women as one way of turning back that tide.

Vancouver Island’s stricken lonely hearts were in an uproar when the California bachelors raided the Seaman's Bride. Undaunted, De Cosmos tried to keep the fires burning until the next bride ship was expected to arrive. To titillate his male readers, the editor ran sentimental love poems and such lurid stories as, “A Mysterious Queen of Fashion,” stirring the minds of prospective suitors to the glories awaiting them “Trying on a Hoop Skirt” had a blushing young male clerk outwitted by a beautiful lady desiring to try on a fashionable underskirt. The salacious tale ended with the clerk discovering that instead of retiring to “rearrange her toilette,” the lady had made off with the merchandise.

De Cosmos also regaled his male readers with advice on choosing a bride. Beware, he wrote, “the girl with a romantic confidence in her Cinderella-like destiny,” who didn't appreciate “steady, good-looking, industrious young men.” Shouldn't she instead “anticipate marriage with one in the humbler walk of life?” No doubt his humbler readers agreed.

De Cosmos finally had some good news to report when, on September 11, 1862, the Colonist announced:

The Tynemouth's Invoice of Young Ladies: The screw steamer Tynemouth, from London, with sixty young ladies aboard, should be here in a few days, and bachelors both young and old must prepare to give fitting reception. A general holiday should be proclaimed; all the bunting waved from flagstaffs; salutes fired from Beacon Hill; clean shirts and suits of good clothes brought into requisition, and every preparation made to give this precious “invoice” a warm welcome. We are sorry to say that the Tynemouth will stop at San Francisco on her way up. ... The Immigration Board should send an agent to San Francisco to prevent “desertions” while the Tynemouth lies at that port.

The men of the colony were abuzz with anticipation. Was it true? Were they really coming? On September 17, De Cosmos's Colonist passed on more hot news from San Francisco:

The Tynemouth at San Francisco: How many hearts will beat with pleasure as this paragraph reaches their eyes, we do not dare think; but we are sure that pleasurable emotions will pervade every bachelor heart in the “great” metropolis when we state that the good steamer Tynemouth, with sixty select bundles of crinoline, arrived at San Francisco on the 10th... and was to sail in a few days for this port with her precious freight — that is, if the Yankees don't steal their affections. The local editor of the San Francisco Herald must himself have been smitten with the fair damsels, to judge from the following: “Colonization of British Columbia'... their rosy cheeks and embonpoint [full-figured bodies] show that they will be valuable accessions to the Colony.”

Next morning’s Colonist reported: “The ship had left San Francisco on the 12th... and is now fully due here.” And, De Cosmos noted in a column, “She was very fast — steaming at fifteen miles an hour.” He added, “It may be consoling to those of our citizens who have expressed a fear that the young women might be stolen by the Californians, that they are under the charge of an agent, whose duty it is to see that they do not leave the vessel.”

De Cosmos, however, had been fooled. The ship had in fact arrived the previous night and was anchored a few kilometres away in Esquimalt Harbour.

On September 20, the Colonist made the official announcement:

Arrival of the Tynemouth: This fine, iron steamship... cast anchor in Esquimalt harbour at 8 o'clock [the] night before last. As a matter of course, we went aboard the steamer yesterday morning and had a good look at the lady passengers. They are mostly cleanly, well-built, pretty-looking young women — ages varying from fourteen to an uncertain figure; a few are young widows who have seen better days. Most appear to have been well raised and generally they seem a superior lot to the women usually met with on emigrant vessels. Taken altogether, we are highly pleased with the appearance of the “invoice,” and believe that they will give a good account of themselves in whatever station of life they may be called to fill.

Bedlam erupted at the news of the ship’s arrival. Anything that floated was hired to get eager young swains out to the ship. Others, said the Colonist “...toiled along primitive roads to the port, hacking miles through the heat and dust… arrayed in their best, down to polished shoes and delicately perfumed handkerchiefs.”

For the next few days, De Cosmos gleefully reported on the antics. Hoping to inspect the ship’s “lovely freight,” some respectable notables “hove in sight.” Despite their “protestations of honorable intentions,” the newspaper reported, the boatload found the gangplank pulled up against them, and were forced to return to shore “like baffled birds of prey.” Chortled De Cosmos in a column: “A large number of citizens visited Esquimalt ... and were generally ordered off and returned from their fruitless errand with heavy hearts.”

It had not, however, been fruitless for the newspaper. Eager advertisers bought space to promote products for the lovelorn. A large ad for toiletries suggested, among other delights, “Essence Jockey Club” for men, a product called “Kiss Quick,” and de rigueur castor oil pomade for gentlemen’s hair. Other advertisers bypassed the courtship stage altogether and went directly to flogging crockery and blankets.

. . .

Some days after the women’s arrival, the Colonist reported a “SHOCKING DEPRAVITY” — apparently two clergymen and a naval officer had made “a melancholy discovery.” They had come across one of the girls in the act! She was talking through the barracks fence — to a man!

In his newspaper, De Cosmos warned: “What will become of a young lady who exhibits such extreme depravity ... who would allow ... converse with that most dangerous of all animals — a young man. ...To guard against a repetition ... we respectfully recommend a file of marines drawn from among the oldest men ... with especial reference to their ugliness, be stationed around the barracks in future with strict instructions to bayonet every young man who may have the audacity to approach.”

There's more at the link.  It highlights the very, very different moral standards and relationship styles in force more than a century and a half ago.

Peter

Here's a wonderful example of a generous, loving family.  The report is from 2019, but that doesn't diminish its impact.

A set of seven brothers and sisters were just adopted together after being separated for over a year in foster care.

Emerson, 12, Autumn, 11, Jaxon, 9, Journey, 8, Jace, 7, Piper, 5, and Sawyer, 3, found their forever home on Wednesday thanks to their new adoptive parents , Lisa and Gary Fulbright.

"Everyone was ecstatic, it was a full courtroom," Lisa Fulbright of Derby, Kansas, told "Good Morning America," about the adoption day. "Autumn, she woke up this morning, stretched and her first words were, 'I'm adopted!'"

Lisa and Gary Fulbright already had a combined seven children from their previous marriages. The couple also share a biological son together, Logan, 17.

Siblings Piper, 5 and Sawyer, 3, got their forever home on Wednesday thanks to their new parents, Lisa and Gary Fulbright of Derby, Kan.

Since all of their children except Logan had moved out, the Fulbrights decided to become foster parents. Three years ago, they adopted a pair of siblings -- Hannah, 10, and Levi, 8.

Then, in Feb. 2017, three brothers, Jaxon, Journey and Jace, came into their care. The Fulbrights would often invite their other siblings over for holidays so that Emerson, Autumn, Jaxon, Journey, Jace, Piper and Sawyer could all be together.

June of that same year, Emerson and Autumn joined their brothers at the Fulbright's home. Piper and Sawyer followed in February 2018.

Emerson, 12, Autumn, 11, Jaxon, 9, Journey, 8, Jace, 7, Piper, 5 and Sawyer 3, had been in foster care in the state of Kansas for 734 days.

Lisa Fulbright said she and her husband fell in love with all seven kids, who came from a neglectful family and were into care by the state of Kansas. Saint Francis Ministries, an organization that provides foster care and adoption services to children in state custody, asked the Fulbrights if they would consider adopting all of the siblings.

. . .

The Fulbrights immediately agreed to adopt the children, and on April 10, they made it official at the Juvenile District Court in Wichita. The family even worse custom jerseys to honor their favorite football team, the Kansas City Chiefs.

. . .

Lisa Fulbright said all seven of her children are kind-hearted and a whole lot of fun.

"It's kind of chaos but it's a fun type of chaos because we just love them," she added.

There's more at the link, including photographs.

In this day and age, when so much pressure is being exerted on and against traditional families, it's heartwarming to see a couple care so much about keeping siblings together that they expanded their family to include them.  There are few who'd have been willing to take on that responsibility - or so many extra kids!  Kudos to them, and to the agencies that made the arrangements.

We need more families like this.

Peter

Click over to this post at A Nod To The Gods.  If it doesn't make you laugh out loud...

Peter

From Larry Lambert at Virtual Mirage:

Dating is a great way to realize that dying alone isn’t the worst thing that could happen.

Makes me glad I'm married!

Peter