Gold Diggers of 1933 - Wow look how wholesome/natural women were in 1930s!

[Winston]

Wow check out this clip from the musical "Gold Diggers of 1933". Don't the women in them look so wholesome, natural, and pure, even though they are singing about money? lol. Women in 1933 were so different! @abcdavid01 will love this. lol. Doesn't this look like the good old days and golden era for vibing with natural normal women? lol



Trailer for the musical.



Another clip from it called "Remember my forgotten man". Wow doesn't the singer in this look so wholesome and natural compared to women of today? lol

[Winston]

Wow check out this Broadway musical from 1929. Don't the women dancing in it look so wholesome and natural compared to today? lol

[publicduende]

@Winston

If you read a bit about that period (from end of WW1 to the onset of Great Depression), you will probably learn that there was very little innocence and wholesomeness in US society, and probably those women.

Those were the years of sky-high stocks, where even a simple secretary could dream of becoming a millionaire (on paper, at least) and party to oblivion. Those were the times when the relaxation of morals and sexual discipline, at least in the large cities, led to massive syphilis outbreaks, hundreds of thousands of children born out of wedlock and swiftly given away to orphanages.

In the end, the Great Depression cleaned those excesses up.

I am not a historian and a scholar of the US but, wanting to choose a period of relative moral strength and wholesomeness of American society, I would choose the WW2 and the roaring 50s, up until the relative degeneration brough about by the cultural/sexual revolution of the 60s.

[Winston]

Yeah but @publicduende. What I mean is that they looked wholesome compared to TODAY, not compared to the 1800s or something. lol. They also look more feminine and friendly and approachable. I'm sure if you went back in time to the 1930s, you could go out and meet women easily and start conversations easily, like I did in Russia right? Because people were open and direct and flirtation was normal and natural back then. So you could flirt to your heart's content without feeling any social anxiety, like I did in Russia, right? That's how the old world was, before the NWO where everyone is isolated and antisocial and it feels taboo to talk to strangers. You know what I mean?

I'm not talking about Christian morals. I'm talking about social connection and ease of dating life and no incels, etc. You know what I mean?

[Winston]

Btw PD, I wasn't talking about Christian values when I said wholesome. I meant more like natural, kind of like women in the old world where you could flirt with them and approach them and flatter and ask them out them without feeling like a creep or violator. Like I did in Russia. Have you seen any of the 20 hours of video of me flirting in Russia that I uploaded? If so, that's what I mean. Like women are women and men are men, that kind of thing. You know what I mean?

Btw, have any of you seen any those old Shirley Temple movies from the 1930s? If so, the women in them also look very wholesome, feminine, and natural too.

[publicduende]

Yeah but @publicduende. What I mean is that they looked wholesome compared to TODAY, not compared to the 1800s or something. lol. They also look more feminine and friendly and approachable. I'm sure if you went back in time to the 1930s, you could go out and meet women easily and start conversations easily, like I did in Russia right? Because people were open and direct and flirtation was normal and natural back then. So you could flirt to your heart's content without feeling any social anxiety, like I did in Russia, right? That's how the old world was, before the NWO where everyone is isolated and antisocial and it feels taboo to talk to strangers. You know what I mean?

I'm not talking about Christian morals. I'm talking about social connection and ease of dating life and no incels, etc. You know what I mean?

Well, we all know what happened to Western countries in the past few decades, @Winston.

I guess, back in the 50s or 60s, people were simply brought up to place trust on other people: starting from their direct and extended families, their communities, the elder (therefore "wiser"), etc. Any "stranger" always had to carry a little burden of suspicion with them, but they could easily remove it by simply showing themselves well dressed/groomed, well-mannered and well-adjusted to whatever stereotypes that defined "a good person" back then. Ironically, as you know, racism towards black people persisted in US society well until the 70s, so a perfectly well-adjusted black person would elicit less trust that a less-than-well-adjusted white.

In particular, girls were brought up to always be polite with men, especially older men. The idea that a man approaching a young woman and throwing some flirtatious words at them would be "dangerous" or "unsafe" (as in today's woke society) was unimaginable. There was also a more accepted view that "boys will be boys", so things like catcalling or the typical aggressive approaches of sex-starved seamen or soldiers, were not considered pleasant but not pursued like a crime either, like we hear today.

It's just a matter of women being forced to show much more restraint or discipline, at least in public. I really don't think human nature has changed much since the 1800s or the 1930s. Sexual crimes used to happen then as they happen now. People used to be greedy, violent and narcissistic then as much as (if not more than) now.

What I think changed are two things:

1. the relentless sexualisation of everything that sells, or needs to be sold, from chewing gum to cars, which pushed most men to a continuous state of sexual titillation, which might well serve as a trigger to buy the chewing gum or car, but over time keeps them in a constant state of (over)excitement
2. the sense of paranoia that has permeated society, both men and women, and the view that, unless a man looks exactly like Henry Cavill or Chris Hemsworth, they are just creeps ready for unspeakable acts with whatever flesh they can get their hands on.

I remember reading a long scholarly article years ago, about a pillar of ancient Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) culture that permeated literature down to common perception: the correspondence of good aesthetics to good ethics. These ancient cultures believed that everything that Nature or men create has to serve a purpose, and the more something serves its intended purpose, the more beautiful it looks. This fusion of function and form is still one of the key themes of industrial design, so in some areas that principle is very valid.

The problem happens when we try to apply this idea to human beings, who are always a marvellous expression of Mother Nature, yet not all comply to our latest aesthetic canons

At several junctions in history you would find scholars, scientists and politicians embracing physiognomic theories, whereby someone who looked ugly (maybe because of birth defects or the consequences of diseases) was also considered evil or more prone to evil. In some cases, the corollary applied that societies had a right to protect themselves from these "defective goods", by marginalising them, shutting them out from the upper echelons of productive society, or even, as in case of eugenics, forbidding them to procreate.

We all know how fascinating, yet deeply wrong, these theories are. Yet, it so happens that our hyper-sexualised society where visual perfection is always a real-time Instagram filter away, nothing short of Hollywood perfect, nobody short of an underwear model is enough to the typical TikTok girl.

[Daddy Wu]

Winston! My son!

You don’t know what mean “gold digger”???

Gold digger don’t care about you!

Gold digger only play you!!

Because she know you are dumbass!!

Because you do only playboy nonsense!!!

Don’t be dumbass! Listen to Daddy!!!

Love,
Your Daddy