You Look It, But Do You Act It?

[pdxvintagette]

FooFoo, I never thought of tattoos. That's something that kinda pertains to this - at one time, no polite woman (and most men!) wouldn't think of it. It was such a big deal when I decided to get my first one, because I was excited, but worried that it would ruin my preservationist/perfectionist vintage aesthetic. I didn't. I have three tattoos now, all of which need to be fixed, sadly. All are vintage motifs ... one from some cotton feedsack, literally, one from a drinking glass, and one is a Sailor Jerry piece. And is strange, because I have a love/hate relationship with them. In bombshell 50's wear, I like sporting them. But looking at the dress I'm buying to get married in (1940s New York couture beaded rayon jersey gown) I kinda hate them peeking out at the back. Once these are repaired, I won't get any more... at least, no more where they would be revealed by anything vintage.

Doing it again ... I wouldn't get them. But I see a lot of people who are VERY, VERY vintage, with real love for the time/aesthetic/manners who have a lot more ink than I do!

P.S. I know ShooShooBaby, and she's one book with a damn deceptive cover! She's also one of the most upfront, frank, honest people I know, just generally fabulous.

P.P.S - There I go with my less-than-vintage vocabulary...

 

[Foofoogal]

It is really proof the world has turned upside down when you have to actually justify things that used to be common knowledge- that sobriety is better than drunkenness, purity better then impurity, virtue better than vice. Virtues and vices aren't interchangeable. There is always room for gray, but there are some things that are simply immutable and always have been.

I do seriously agree with this statement. Common sense really.

 

[pdxvintagette]

Nothing to be sorry about! My fiancee is actually getting two of his worst tattoos lasered off (of course, that is so he can finish his sleeves.) Also, I didn't take you to mean that you didn't like people who have tattoos. I just thought it was kind of interesting in the context of the rest of the idea. The question being - do you live it?

I know some people here in town who wear vintage, who don't have tattoos (which we agree are somewhere outside the vintage *norm*) - but who don't live a vintage lifestyle or care to.

On the other hand, some other folks I know... fiancee included, actually, and is a good example - have a significant number of tattoos, but DO live - at least to a point - the vintage lifestyle. Committed to family, well mannered, values education - values good values! And funny, when he's dressed up (per my avatar pic, although that is a greased hair outfit, so no hat - you would never know he's got nearly full sleeves and a chest piece. And he likes it that. Long sleeved gab shirt and a suit... he's just your local nice vintage fella with a penchance for Art Deco furniture and good hats.

But to sum up ... it would seem that the people here who choose to have tattoos would be the ones least likely to live the life. Even I would think that, if I didn't know it to be otherwise!

 

[freebird]

That's nothing. No dishwasher, garbage disposal, trash compactor or microwave oven here.

The only modern convenience we have is a microwave,(well, could say a refrigerator is a modern convenience as is the range). Our dishwasher is whoever gets to the sink first, garbage disposal is whomever carries it out, ditto on the trash compactor (if the barrel is full).

 

[freebird]

I watch how people are to children and animals alot. It will tell you alot.

Absolutely. I've found that if you watch how someone treats their parents, you'll get an idea of how they'll treat their spouses. It is also true that you can get a general idea by watching how the parents treat each other.

 

[Smithy]

I am actually not particularly religious (infact for the longest time i was atheistic and quasi marxist,). This is not my view, this is simply the view held by virtually all relevant historical sources. It is really proof the world has turned upside down when you have to actually justify things that used to be common knowledge- that sobriety is better than drunkenness, purity better then impurity, virtue better than vice. Virtues and vices aren't interchangeable. There is always room for gray, but there are some things that are simply immutable and always have been.

also: i absolutely don't believe in expecting or demanding anything. I expect that the right people will come around eventually, as i did and many others i know. This isn't a popularity contest, it isn't a political campaign. 1 noble soul is worth more than any number of buffoons. quality over quantity etc.

I have no problem with agreeing that virtue is nobler than vice. What I took umbrage with in what you said was very specific, it was when you rather arrogantly asserted, that people who have loved previously cannot love as much as those who haven't, or in other words people who have been around the block a bit cannot fall as deeply in love as those who haven't.

This is opinion (which you are entitled to) but not empirical fact, and is based more on your upbringing and where you were brought up. I currently live in Scandinavia where it is generally considered healthy to have had previous relationships and experimented, and I know many, many people here who are wildly in love with their partners/husbands/wives and who have in youth led what the more puritanical would no doubt view as unchaste lives. The same could be said for many of my family and friends back home. There is a lot of cultural difference with this issue, and to make resounding pronouncements about the ability of people to love without taking this into account is narrow-minded and very blinkered.

I imagine that the intention of the original poster was merely to find out how many were living a vintage lifestyle not the nature of vice and virtue. Because there are many people on here from different backgrounds and countries, I think you could have merely stated how old fashioned you were without the statements about love and people's ability to do so. You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think the intended scope of this thread was perhaps the most appropriate to use as a soapbox to deliver them.

 

[Maguire]

I do not think i know the "truth". however i certainly believe that my experiences and studies have indeed left me with a wider and better understanding both of the world and myself. I'm far away still from reaching any kind of truth, but i'm certainly content with the track i'm on.

 

[Miss 1929]

I do not think i know the "truth". however i certainly believe that my experiences and studies have indeed left me with a wider and better understanding both of the world and myself. I'm far away still from reaching any kind of truth, but i'm certainly content with the track i'm on.

Fair enough, then you should be careful what hornet's nests you stir up with pronouncements like:
"the right people ultimately understand the correct way and come to the truth one way or another. "
It makes you sound as if you think you have a monopoly on the Way It Is and that is always a rather silly way to sound... I am obviously not the only one to be put off by your tone. Probably just the evils of typing versus talking...

 

[TheKitschGoth]

In this case you are correct- there are two points of view. the correct one (mine) and the incorrect one(yours).

You're the real epitome of charm and grace aren't you?

 

[Mojito]

I’ll admit that I find the idea of having prior relationships (sexual or not) prior to one enduring life partnership being equated to promiscuity is quite abhorrent to me. And rejecting the concept of romantic love and the modern courtship ritual of “dating” in favour of what you seem to be suggesting – that marriage should be based on other criteria, i.e. a “far more communal basis”. That perspective doesn’t reflect widely held Golden Age values and practices – it’s far older and absolutely archaic in contemporary Western societies. “Dating” was part of the courtship ritual of the Golden Age – the term itself goes back at least to 1896.

It is really proof the world has turned upside down when you have to actually justify things that used to be common knowledge- that sobriety is better than drunkenness, purity better then impurity, virtue better than vice. Virtues and vices aren't interchangeable

That’s rather a strawman argument. Who here suggests that drunkenness is better than sobriety? It is frowned upon (and currently binge drinking in particular is the target of campaigns and legislation here in Australia) by virtually everyone but some teens and others who indulge in juvenile rebellious gestures – as has almost always been the case. Intoxication is neither generally regarded as “virtuous” now nor is it a new thing. It has a long and ingloriously history – I can give you stories on everything from my grandfather’s WWI comrades getting drunk on the Western Front (and sometimes glorifying their exploits under the influence) to articles from the turn of last century originating in small Welsh towns when newspaper editors lamented the tendency of the young people in town to get drunk in public.

What is “purity” and what is “impurity”? These are vague and undefined terms as you use them, as if they were self-evident. Frequently, they’re not. Some people with sexual inhibitions regard the very act of intercourse – whether within a loving relationship, even a marriage, or not – as inherently impure. Others regard only certain forms of intercourse as “pure”. Virtues and vices might not be interchangeable, but they’re not always easily defined as such. Give a specific example, and we’ll see 1.) if there is a contemporary consensus on whether that example is pure 2.) a “Golden Age” consensus on the same issue and 3.) how the two differ. As we see from the example of “promiscuity”, your definitions may be disputed.

Maguire, you seem to be claiming a position of objective moral authority based on your “experience” (although what this specifically is and why it is inherently superior you haven’t set out). You imply that those who do not come around to your perspective are “buffoons”, as opposed to the “noble souls” that will come to see things as you do. I couldn’t disagree more. In answer to your argument from personal experience, I would respond that I am very widely traveled, have lived all over the world with exposure to a variety of cultures and religions (including Islam – I have many Muslim friends, am well versed in Islamic history, and although I differ sharply with them on theological and social questions I judge them as individuals), and in the course of my work have interacted with people from many backgrounds. I work in the field of history, so am quite accustomed to the ways in which concepts of the past are filtered by our modern perceptions (which is why I turn so often to primary sources). I share my values with my parents – two wise, well-travelled individuals who show extraordinary wisdom and compassion and from whom I have learned much. I believe passionately in the social and historical ideas I have expressed in this thread. However, I would consider it profoundly disrespectful of the views of others to pretend that my views constituted an objective “truth”. They don’t, and neither do your own.

Foofoogal, I think the children/dogs idea is a good criteria for assessing people! I have friends from polar opposite ends of the political spectrum – from the Ultra Conservatives to the Radical Left. I find them – and their ideas - all interesting, but in assessing them as human beings I tend to look less at the political views they specifically espouse and more at how they actually interact with people (and animals!). Those that show decent humanity and concern for others, practical concern for their well being and a generosity over human failings are the ones I’ve come to respect most of all.

I do have to disagree with LizzieMaine over one thing – I don’t think she’s “square” at all! The ultimate in cool to me has always been someone who, without causing harm to others, is true to their own vision of who they are and who they want to be. And if that entails fulfilling duties as a citizen, getting along courteously with others, dressing in the way that best expresses their personality, then it demonstrates personal integrity and style.

Smithy and Miss1929 – I don’t to any rah-rah cheering from the sidelines here, but I will say that I understand and agree with so much of what you’re saying.

Me, I never really fitted into contemporary styles and attitudes, and I wouldn’t have fitted in during the Golden Age either. But at least now I have more of a choice.

 

[RIOT]

Maguire I believe speaks for alot of people IMHO.

This kid certainly does NOT speak for me.

 

[Foofoogal]

This kid certainly does NOT speak for me.

Do you really think he does not speak for many, many people though? Reality101.

 

[RIOT]

Do you really think he does not speak for many, many people though? Reality101.

Based on the comments he has been receiving on here, NO! The kid needs to get out and live life some more before jumping in here with his "what is right or wrong" statements. Reality101

 

[Foofoogal]

Based on the comments he has been receiving on here, NO!

Hmm. I disagree and believe many, many think like him. Different parts of the world I guess.
I find it most interesting Maguire is from NY though.

I expect NY people, CA people and European people to be more liberal thinking. Just my experience and comments from locals.
I do like discussing this stuff though and am really interested.

 

[pgoat]

if you think about it - every person here loves something of the old ways - yet embraces technology as a means of contacting others who are like-minded.

 

[ShortClara]

Give that man a Schrute buck. :eusa_clap

I want to give many Schrutebucks to this thread. I have some new favorite people, including you Feraud.

For me, in life, I just start to wonder about anyone who starts to tell me how to live, wondering why in the heck they care. If we all looked to our own selves and tried to be the best we can be, according to our own values, the world would be a better place.

 

[Maguire]

Hmm. I disagree and believe many, many think like him. Different parts of the world I guess.
I find it most interesting Maguire is from NY though.

I expect NY people, CA people and European people to be more liberal thinking. Just my experience and comments from locals.
I do like discussing this stuff though and am really interested.

you should clear your PM box, foofoogal.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Note:

This thread has been heavily pruned. Here is the original post stating the intention of the thread:

I was searching through the threads, and I couldn't seem to find one about this , and I want to hear what loungers have to say.

I notice that a lot of threads circulate around fashion, photo's of yourself, basically- the way we look. I think that being vintage is a lot more than just the way we dress...

Do you act the part? Are your views old-fashioned?
What do you ladies look for in men? And men what do you look for in ladies?
Men, do you like to dance? etc... You're thoughts? If you don't is it because you feel as if you wouldn't be able to fit in with society?

For myself, I'm one of the most old-fashioned women you'll ever meet(morally, fashionably, hobbies) , and I'm waiting for a man to ask me to dance.

If you would like you posts to reamin in this thread, please stick to the original topic.

Thanks you and carry on.

 

[Foofoogal]

Ok. my inbox is cleared some. [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

The only modern convenience we have is a microwave,(well, could say a refrigerator is a modern convenience as is the range). Our dishwasher is whoever gets to the sink first, garbage disposal is whomever carries it out, ditto on the trash compactor (if the barrel is full).

A microwave? (Insert out pooring phrase here )
I stay far away from the sink. Carrying is another story and compacting is accomplished with a foot.