>The cause of Ruskin's "disgust" has led to much conjecture.

>The cause of Ruskin's "disgust" has led to much conjecture. Mary Lutyens speculated that he rejected Effie because he was horrified by the sight of her pubic hair. Lutyens argued that Ruskin must have known the female form only through Greek statues and paintings of nudes which lacked pubic hair.[236] However, Peter Fuller wrote, "It has been said that he was frightened on the wedding night by the sight of his wife's pubic hair; more probably, he was perturbed by her menstrual blood."[237]

So what are we deciding was the real horror that made this man scared of pussy for the rest of his life? Was he just gay?

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was probably the whole ordeal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've always wondered about hygiene. What if that b***h just had a nasty pussy and he thought that was normal.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's possible. He seemed confident the problem was unique to her and wanted to marry again.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Ruskin's biographers Tim Hilton and John Batchelor also took the view that menstruation was the more likely explanation, though Batchelor also suggests that body-odour may have been the problem. There is no evidence to support any of these theories.
    trannies seething

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought that the story of Ruskin being afraid of pubic hair because of only knowing women from statues was a fact because I'd heard it from various places, quite disappointing to discover that it's just a conjecture.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It is also true that in letters from Ruskin to Kate Greenaway he asked her to draw her "girlies" (as he called her child figures) without clothing

    >In a letter to his physician John Simon on 15 May 1886, Ruskin wrote: I like my girls from ten to sixteen—allowing of 17 or 18 as long as they're not in love with anybody but me.—I've got some darlings of 8—12—14—just now, and my Pigwiggina here—12—who fetches my wood and is learning to play my bells.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >who fetches my wood and is learning to play my bells.

      ruskinbros our rebuttal?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was he just gay?
    No he was not
    >Ruskin's later relationship with Rose La Touche began on 3 January 1858, when she was 10 years old and he was about to turn 39. He was her private art tutor,[240] and the two maintained an educational relationship through correspondence until she was 18. Around that time he asked her to marry him. However, Rose's parents forbade it, after learning about his first marriage. Ruskin repeated his marriage proposal when Rose became 21, and legally free to decide for herself. She was willing to marry if the union would remain unconsummated, because her doctors had told her she was unfit for marriage; but Ruskin declined to enter another such marriage for fear of its effect on his reputation.

    Ruskin was blackpilled by modernity and the death of Rose sent him into mental derangement, he was mute for the final years of his life and today he's mostly remembered in popular culture for his odd marriage. He was into young girls and probably just thought Effie was ugly or didn't like her. He had no problem with wanting to marry someone else, the pubic hair shit is false

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Turned off by ugly roast, Oi reckon

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >gay
    Have (you) read the Rose La Touche stuff? I don't think he was gay, anon, but something that remains 'reprehensible' even in modern times

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Look at this old cartoon of Ruskin as St. George slaying an African.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Levy
      hmm

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        he's critical obviously but there's a lot of good documentation. the gist of the book is online in this series of articles:
        https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Carlyle is the one who hated blacks and defended slavery, I don’t recall Ruskin ever supporting anything like slavery or imperialism

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cecil Rhodes is said to have been influenced by Ruskin's pro-imperialist views.

        >Listen for instance to the words of John Ruskin delivered in 1870 as part of his inaugural lecture as Slade Professor of Art at Oxford University. The noted art critic and cultural observer said: “There is a destiny now possible to us—the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused…. [W]ill you, youths of England, make your country a royal throne of kings; a sceptered isle for all the world a source of light, a centre of peace.”**

        >He went on to speak of an ethical choice between two styles of rule: “There are the two oriflammes [banners carrying inspiring symbols]; which shall we plant on the farthest islands,—the one that floats in heavenly fire, or that hangs heavy with the foul tissue of terrestrial gold?”

        >Rhodes is said to have owned a longhand copy of Ruskin’s speech—though the words about the “foul tissue of terrestrial gold” seem not to have made an impression. The lecture was delivered not long before the 18-year-old Rhodes sailed to South Africa to stay with his brother for reasons of ill health.

        Ruskin also served the John Eyre Defence and Aid Fund, which supported the Governor's violent quelling of a slave rebellion in Jamaica. He also supported the Confederate States of America.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Was not aware of those beliefs for Ruskin but they had to have been relatively muted especially compared to Carlyle, I haven’t come across anything overtly racist or imperialist in what I’ve read from him

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also, as far as Carlyle is concerned, it's worth mentioning that Ruskin was very much his disciple in social and political thinking. As he wrote about 'Unto This Last':
        >The value of these papers on economy is in their having, for the first time since money was set up for the English Dagon, declared that there never was nor will be any vitality nor Godship in him, and that the value of any ship of the line is by no means according to the price you have given for your guns, but to the price you have given for your Captain. For the first time, I say, this is declared in purely accurate scientific terms—Carlyle having led the way, as he does in all noble insight in this generation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Carlyle liked black people, he honestly just thought they would be happier in slavery and that their work was deserving of praise.

        >But, thank heaven, our interesting black population, equalling almost in number of heads one of the Ridings of Yorkshire, and in worth, in (quantity of intellect, faculty, docility, energy, and available human valor and value) perhaps one of the streets of Seven Dials, are all doing remarkably well. “Sweet blighted lilies,” as the American epitaph on the Black person child has it, sweet blighted lilies, they are holding up their heads again! How pleasant, in the universal bankruptcy abroad, and dun, dreary stagnancy at home, as if for England too there remained nothing but to suppress Chartist riots, banish united Irishmen, vote the supplies, and wait with arms crossed till black anarchy and social death devoured us also, as it has the others; how pleasant to have always this fact to fall back upon: our beautiful black darlings are at least happy; with little labor except to the teeth, which, surely, in those excellent horse-jaws of theirs, will not fail!

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can you blame him? I pity the man whose first encounter with the pussy was during menstruation (in the 19th century, no less)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *