Coffee ad from the 1650s

[Boing Boing]
Coffee ad from the 1650s:

This handbill — which can be seen in the British Museum — dates back to the 1650s, and was produced by the first coffee shop in London, in St. Michael’s Alley, Cornhill.

It is a simple innocent thing, composed into a drink, by being dryed in an Oven, and ground to Powder, and boiled up with Spring water, and about half a pint of it to be drunk, fasting an hour before and not Eating an hour after, and to be taken as hot as possibly can be endured; the which will never fetch the skin off the mouth, or raise any Blisters, by reason of that Heat.

The Turks drink at meals and other times, is usually Water, and their Dyet consists much of Fruit, the Crudities whereof are very much corrected by this Drink.

The quality of this Drink is cold and Dry; and though it be a Dryer, yet it neither heats, nor inflames more than hot Posset.

It forcloseth the Orifice of the Stomack, and fortifies the heat with- [missing text] its very good to help digestion, and therefore of great use to be [missing text] bout 3 or 4 a Clock afternoon, as well as in the morning.

The Vertue of the COFFEE Drink.


Instapaper Roundup

Recently I’ve been posting from Instapaper directly to my blog (and thence to Facebook). But the newest version of the Instapaper app has a bug that prevents me from doing that. So here’s a roundup of some recent stories I’ve enjoyed. -Egg

14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever
Technology Provides an Alternative to Love. – NYTimes.com
STANFORD Magazine: March/April 2010 > Features > Clelia Mosher

Amazon reviews for creepy Olympic mascots

[Charlie Stross]

The Blitz spirit:
be glad you can't see this! The horror, the horror!

To all those of you who live in London and are having to put up with the current Olympic insanity, I send my condolences.

For those of you who don’t, to give you some idea of the sheer cognitive weirdness of LOCOG (who, I swear, could keep a psychiatrist working on new diagnoses to add to DSM-VI for a decade), here’s one example of how London (and the UK in general) is responding to these neo-fascist killjoys.

See, the Olympics have two cuddly toy mascots, Wenlock and Mandeville. (Never mind, for now, that these focus-group-tested horrors resemble a bizarre cross between an animated CCTV camera and a dildo with legs: it’s the thought that counts.)

Of course, as is always the case with sporting mascots these days, merchandising happens: toy plushies are on sale. And so are much more dubious souvenirs. (“Hello, I’m Wenlock! Don’t I look smart in my police officer’s uniform? I have the important job of protecting you on your journey to the London 2012 Games … we can have lots of fun together!”)

No, seriously: go marvel at the true Orwellian horror of the product, then read the customer reviews. Especially the one-star reviews.

The Blitz Spirit is still alive and screaming and on display inside Amazon.co.uk’s reader feedback!

(Final note for LOCOG rights gestapo: I do not consent to the idiotic terms of use that I have been informed can be found at the other end of that link. If you object to this blog entry, feel free to piss up a rope.)

Stories from the world’s first sex survey

[Fascinating. -egg]
[Boing Boing]
Stories from the world’s first sex survey:

This woman, Clelia Duel Mosher, conducted the world’s first sex survey—a series of interviews with 45 American women, most of whom were born before 1870. She conducted the surveys off and on between 1892 and 1920, but never published on them. They were found in 1973, and present an interesting take on Victorian and Edwardian-era women’s sex lives, something we usually only hear about from decidedly biased sources from that time period that often claim women didn’t like sex at all.

The surveys show that wasn’t the case. More interestingly, they tell the story of changing expectations about marriage and sex.

Slightly more than half of these educated women claimed to have known nothing of sex prior to marriage; the better informed said they’d gotten their information from books, talks with older women and natural observations like “watching farm animals.” Yet no matter how sheltered they’d initially been, these women had—and enjoyed—sex. Of the 45 women, 35 said they desired sex; 34 said they had experienced orgasms; 24 felt that pleasure for both sexes was a reason for intercourse; and about three-quarters of them engaged in it at least once a week.

Unlike Mosher’s other work, the survey is more qualitative than quantitative, featuring open-ended questions probing feelings and experiences. “She’s actually asking these questions not about physiology or mechanics—she’s really asking about sexual subjectivity and the meaning of sex to women,” Freedman says. Their responses were often mixed. Some enjoyed sex but worried that they shouldn’t. One slept apart from her husband “to avoid temptation of too frequent intercourse.” Some didn’t enjoy sex but faulted their partner. Mosher writes: [She] “Thinks men have not been properly trained.”

Their responses reflected the cultural shifts of the late 19th century, as marriage became viewed as a romantic union, not just an economic one, and as people began to dissociate sex from procreation, says Freedman. One woman, born in 1867, wrote that before marriage she believed sex to be only for reproduction, but later changed her mind: “In my experience the habitual bodily expression of love has a deep psychological effect in making possible complete mental sympathy & perfecting the spiritual union that must be the lasting ‘marriage’ after the passion of love has passed away with the years.”

Read more about the survey and Clelia Mosher in the Standford Alumni Magazine.


Thanks to Jennifer Ouellette for linking to this story!