That's funny, I had a similar reaction. When I hear the word "groom" I immediately think of, well, body hair, or, like dog grooming, or something.

Do you mean fashion? Are you trying to figure out whether fashions are more formal or casual at certain time periods? My observation has been that people are more casual during economic downturns probably because lots of people are unemployed. They tend to dress more at the beginning of recoveries, probably because lots of people have new jobs and folks to impress, and more money to spend on clothes. At the end of long booms, however, people get casual again because they become more complacent/burnt out on work and don't feel compelled to impress anyone. Is that the sort of thing that you're getting at? I guess applied to turnings, Late Awakenings, Unravellings and early Crises are casual dress times and late Crises, Highs and Early Awakenings are formal dress times. Let's face it, though, we are hardly a "dress to impress" culture. There's a reason why Europeans think we have no style.

Oh dear, you *are* referring to body hair! Hence the machete reference! Uh, I think I'll pass on this one . . .

On 2002-01-18 21:21, Neisha '67 wrote:

That's funny, I had a similar reaction. When I hear the word "groom" I immediately think of, well, body hair, or, like dog grooming, or something.

Personally, I would have used cat grooming (or lack thereof) for the analogy, but dog grooming is fine so long as you are talking about a St. Bernard or a Husky or something for the '70s. Short-haired dogs do not apply until some time in the '80s. Most recently, Chihuahua grooming has been in vogue.

Hmm, Stonewall, I read that last post and I think neither cats nor dogs, instead I think of an animal that says *oink*!

Choselh, Neisha:

Now, now! You have to admit. There may be a saecular pattern here.

Susan, Choselh:

I don't have any questions but I thought people might get a good laugh. And surely I am not the first one to notice this. S&H did not deal with it but you have to admit that it certainly does appear to relate to the saeculum.

On 2002-01-18 21:39, Neisha '67 wrote:

Hmm, Stonewall, I read that last post and I think neither cats nor dogs, instead I think of an animal that says *oink*!

Neisha, now I am really starting to think that you must be a J and not a P. Relax and let your hair down (oops...sorry!). Weren't you the one who was sorry she missed out on a sex discussion? This is not sex per se but I do not know what other heading it should go under. Do you have a better idea? Maybe you should name the topic then?


Female Grooming and the Saeculum appears to get a thumbs down even though it has obvious saecular ramifications (and I know damn well that you people see it too). I will now let somebody else stick their head on the block with respect to the general sex heading which people keep mentioning.


_________________
"I don't have any allegiances like that anymore. I don't ask what people's politics are. I ask what their principles are." -- Christopher Hitchens

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-01-18 21:59 ]</font>

Well, Stonewall, perhaps S&H are aware of saecular body hair. :smile: In both 13th Gen and MR, there is a cartoon showing a Silent woman, a Boomer woman, an Xer woman and a Millie woman, all at around age 20 or so. Only the Boomer woman has hairy legs. Has anyone noticed this? The Xer woman is emaciated, but no hair on the legs, and the Millie woman is actually "built like a woman."

The tendency for body hair to have been popular in the 70s is a result of the "back to nature" movement of the early '70s--anything natural was in: natural foods, "the natural look," (no makeup), natural childbirth, breastfeeding, long, long untampered-with hair, going braless, etc., etc. Back then, Boomers shunned anything sterile, artificial, or otherwise "GI-like." Science was out, back to nature was in. Even if it meant flaunting body hair.

Susan:

Are you saying that Boomer women in the Awakening went so far as to not shave their legs? I don't remember hairy legs at all but maybe this was the '60s when I was too young. How common was this?

Actually, I recall an Xer woman once with unshaved legs and this was the first time I had ever encountered such a thing (in fact it was really kind of a surreal "no f***ing way" experience). It wasn't for me and I wondered what kind of guy would actually go for that. For all I know, this girl was a lesbian. She was just sitting at her desk in an office.

On 2002-01-18 22:23, choselh wrote:

On 2002-01-18 22:09, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Susan:

Are you saying that Boomer women in the Awakening went so far as to not shave their legs? I don't remember hairy legs at all but maybe this was the '60s when I was too young. How common was this?

Oh my God, were you actually talking about shaving something ELSE?!? That's it, I'm outta this discussion ...

No, no, I was talking about the cooch (this is as safe a word as I can find without sounding like a medical professional). But Susan made an interesting point about legs. However, Choselh, if you want to get back on the cooch, go ahead. :smile:

In response to this "body hair and generations talk":

<font size="5">All of you need to go to bed.</font> :smile:

On 2002-01-18 22:09, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Susan:

Are you saying that Boomer women in the Awakening went so far as to not shave their legs? I don't remember hairy legs at all but maybe this was the '60s when I was too young. How common was this?

Well, I was too young to have much or any hair on my legs then so I personally didn't *have* to take care of this, er, problem...ahem ...but you used to see lots of hippie-type women around like the one in the S&H cartoon who looked just like that...gorilla legs and all!

So I think it was a pretty common occurrence. As far as hair in other parts, um, well, I just don't know and don't WANT to know.

[quote]
On 2002-01-18 22:42, choselh wrote:

On 2002-01-18 22:31, Stonewall Patton wrote:

if you want to get back on the cooch, go ahead. :smile:

Noooo thanks.

Well I think I've broken my record for number of posts in one night, so I'm signing off and going to bed. Nite everybody.

Now, Choselh, you have spent far too much time on this thread tonight to feign disinterest. :wink:

BTW, you actually thought I was making a serious, scholarly statement with this and were therefore afraid to laugh out loud???? I admit that it does appear to relate to the saeculum. But you have to admit that it is funny!

I hate shaving my legs, and I go as long as I possibly can before I actually do so. It's a pain in the tush, not to mention when I slip and cut myself.

Too much information? :smile:

Kiff '61

Kiff, that bit of information really goes well with my morning coffee...NOT! But I guess I asked for it, didn't I? :lol:

I tried to be vague so as not to turn this place into the Penthouse Forum of the Internet. But in case I was overly vague, let me clarify that the post (and topic) was a joke and not intended as a solicitation of the "grooming" habits or our resident females. I am neither compiling data for the Gallup service nor marketing depilatory cream. There were repeated pseudo-pleas for a sexual topic on this thread and, seeing as nobody would provide one, I offered an at least marginally sexual topic with definite ties to the saeculum.

This subject has actually come up a few times socially in mixed company that I recall, so many people of both sexes have made this same observation and laughed about it. But I doubt that anybody has ever tried to tie it specifically to S&H's theory. Maybe we will see S&H on Booknotes with Brian Lamb discussing "landing strips" in the 3T? Perhaps they will appear with Katie Couric complete with visual aids.... OK, OK, I better quit now. Time for another cup of coffee....


_________________
"I don't have any allegiances like that anymore. I don't ask what people's politics are. I ask what their principles are." -- Christopher Hitchens

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-01-19 07:15 ]</font>

Here's some data about saecular body hair that is a little less overtly sexual. Most Prophet generations have gone through a phase during their youth where they go "natural" and hair becomes a big deal. Everyone knows about Boomers and body hair, of course, but the Missionaries and the Transies also went through such a phase. For Missionary women during their "Romantic" phase, very long, long hair was fashionable, often worn with flowers just like hippie flower children, and young men liked to wear long beards. Transie men, of course, are notorious for their extra-long beards. For Missionary (or was it Transie?) women during the Awakening, natural undyed chemise dresses worn without constricting corsets were very fashionable. They were not much different looking than the long unstructured granny dresses Boomer women sometimes wore.

_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-01-19 13:54 ]</font>

Any reader of a Regency Romance novel can tell you that during the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, it was very fashionable for women to wear simple empire-waisted sheer linen dresses that clung closely to the legs.

During most of the 18th and 19th century, women's fashion was characterized by wide skirts (think of Scarlett O'Hara and her crinolines) and very tiny waists (closed in by corsets). The period of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic era, and the English Regency were a noticable exception to this trend.

I don't know the generational lineup of European fashionistas two hundred years ago -- I know that there is some difference in turnings and generations. In America, the young would have been adaptive types (Compromisers). The idealistic Transies would have been kids -- indeed, as they matured, waistlines went back down, the corsets went back on, and the skirts got larger.

Don't have a clue how a thread about generational boundaries could lead to an extended discourse about body hair, but since it has, what about Boomer men and body hair? The next time virtually any Sylvester Stallone movie comes on, see what I mean (in particular the second Rambo movie, and also both Cliffhanger and Demolition Man). And what about that "acclaimed" Vanity Fair spread he did back in November of '93?

Back to topic. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the last Awakening started on 11/22/63, as S&H state, or somewhat later (1967-1968 have been posited).

I'm not going to give any opinions here, but for an interested picture of the tail end of the last high, try watching "Bye Bye Birdie". Its clearly pointing to the Awakening themes. It is about teenager girls who are crazy about an Elvis-type pop star called "Conrad Birdie" who has been drafted into the Army. He picks a lucky sixteen-year-old girl from Ohio to be the recipient of the last kiss before he goes on duty.

The generations are fun. The teens are early-wave boomers (1963-16=1947). The Dad is a crotchety GI who locks horns with his Birdie-crazed daughter; the Silent mother tries to smooth things over. Its a real hoot!

:lol:

The ge

I saw that movie when i was about 19 or 20. I thought it was really adorable, and those teens seemed so sweet and innocent to me in 1978. Besides, Ann Margret was really hot and she sure can sing! (so what I'm a woman, I can still recognize sexiness in another woman!)

The Awakening definitely started when JFK was shot....That was the end of the innocence...and 1964 brought the British Invasion and the Berkeley protests.
and LSD and just everything.
Mom said 1966 was the year it really kicked in.
As for the end of it...I dont know. I do know I was part of that group of kids that were filling the basements, driveways, and backyards of the early 80s, with pudding bowl haircuts, striped shirts, osh kosh, comparing notes on Atari games, Conaan, Landau Calrissian, and that whole youth culture...and I was definitely the baby...
Maybe you late wave Xers can relate to some sort of High era childhood moment pre 1965.

i mean late wave Boomers

On 2002-01-20 15:06, Justin'79 wrote:

Maybe you late wave Xers can relate to some sort of High era childhood moment pre 1965.

Justin, I think you mean late wave Boomers. If you meant late wave Xers, you would have been, er, about -14 in 1965! :smile:

Good question, though.

Whatever memories I have of prior to 1965 are pretty hazy, at best. I turned 7 in '65, and I don't think kids' memories really start kicking in until ages 4-7, maybe later for some.

I have vague, vaporous memories of the JFK assassination (sp?) that seem more like a dream than real memories. Mostly what I remember was the weird and sad way all the adults around were acting, and this scared me because I didn't really understand it. Oh, I suppose I knew that JFK was president, and that he'd been killed, but i had no inkling of what this meant or the profound way it seemed to affect adults and teens. I sort of remember heating about the Cuban Missile Crisis a lot on the radio and nightly news, but I had no idea what it meant nor did I care.

Sorry, this is all I can think of prior to '65. If I think of anything else, I'll post it. But here's some from after 1965.

I do remember sensing a Big Change in the works around 1966-1967 (you got this about right, Justin); I think the Awakening had been going on since at leat 1964 if not earlier, but didn't hit Middle American upper middle class families like ours until a bit later. Hippies fascinated me and scared me a little. When I was about 12, I wanted to be one--they just seemed so cool back then. But by then, even if I had been old enough, the hippie movement was already on its downslide (it was 1970) and older Boomers everywhere were moving back to the land and working on personal self-development, readying themselves for their Yuppie incarnation that would come a bit later in the 80s. I think the 1970s "Me Decade" was the transition between the 1960s hippie movement and exploring inner space using drugs and Eastern spirituality to the much more materialistic, more mundane, but just as self-conscious, Yuppie 1980s. People stopped trying to change the world and turned their efforts on themselves, to become as "perfect" as it was possible to be.

I remember when RFK was shot, my parents were glued to the TV even through dinner, and as political events had little interest for me then, I thought all this was just stupid...

I remember feeling sad when MLK was shot, but wasn't sure why. I just knew he was "a very good man who helped black people." This is what I had been told by adults, so I didn't come to this idea on my own (though I'm sure I would have).

I was more profoundly affected by the Moon landing in 1969. This had meaning for me and I think just about every kid I knew. It was an enormously exciting concept, that we had reached this level of technology. Little did I know at the time that the space program was all about politics--looking better and more modern than the Russians-- than it was about actual scientific advancement and exploration, and that 33 years later we would still not have returned.

On 2002-01-20 00:27, Anthony '58 wrote:

Don't have a clue how a thread about generational boundaries could lead to an extended discourse about body hair, but since it has, what about Boomer men and body hair? The next time virtually any Sylvester Stallone movie comes on, see what I mean (in particular the second Rambo movie, and also both Cliffhanger and Demolition Man). And what about that "acclaimed" Vanity Fair spread he did back in November of '93?

Well, that is karma for you. Anthony, I inadvertently grossed out some of the ladies with my earlier post and now you have successfully grossed me out with this one! I guess I never noticed the "hair" situation with Stallone because I cannot even recall what he looked like in these movies. I remember that he went shirtless throughout Rambo but I could not tell you whether he had shaved his chest or not. And this is what you are getting at, right?

Do you see a pattern with this conforming to generational/saecular boundaries? There seems to be one with women so anything is possible.

Oh who cares!
Seriously, who cares?
I first came to this site because i wasnt sure if I was "gen X" or not. I was just curious, but in the end I still dont even know if Gen X exists.
If for anything I strongly identify and have always been part of the postmodern era, and identify with the beastie boys and becks of the world.
But other than that nothing is certain and it will always remain that way.
It is senseless.

Justin:

I don't know what you are confused about. Your cynicism consistently comes through loud and clear. You could be the poster child for what S&H define as an Xer.