Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 This is only semi-related to your question, and slightly tangential to our group, but the Victorians weren't necessarily as we tend to imagine them. See Hugh Urban's observations: " [....] [T]he men and women of the Victorian era were really not the repressed, puritanical prudes that we commonly imagine them to be today; on the contrary, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries witnessed an unprecedented new interest and proliferation of discourse about sexuality, which was not categorized, classified and described in endless detail. " From -- The Omnipotent Oom: Tantra and Its Impact on Modern Western Esotericism Hugh B. Urban Full (and interesting!) article available online. http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeIII/HTML/Oom.html I'm curious -- did the laws against public displays of affection cover everybody, or just Indians? I'm speculating on just what and who might be the subject of control. Note that Hugh Urban is a historian of thought. When he speaks of 'Tantra', he's talking about what his subject *think* (or rather, thought) about Tantra. The map isn't identical to the territory. , " salharmonica " <salharmonica wrote: > On a semi-related note, I've been > curious about the Victorian > attitudes about sex in India, > the laws against public affection, etc. > > Salma > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.