You're in a time machine...
- Thread starter BNF
- Start date
My number one destination is ancient Roman Empire: it was dirty and explicit. A lot of debauchery. But, of course, I need to be sure that I will not be a slave at that time... but a patrician 
If time machine is just putting me in selected time, it is not so fine. I need some conditions to be fit, because it's always (at any decade) good to belong to upper-class, and it *sucks* extremely to belong to lower classes. And the more ancient time is were, the more problems I could face in lower-class: diseases, ********, slavery, no rights etc.
So I like to travle in time, only if I will be sure in what level of society I be "puted in". Dream? Not more dream than a time-machine itself
I'd like to be a Pharaon as well -> travel to ancient Egypt.
If time machine is just putting me in selected time, it is not so fine. I need some conditions to be fit, because it's always (at any decade) good to belong to upper-class, and it *sucks* extremely to belong to lower classes. And the more ancient time is were, the more problems I could face in lower-class: diseases, ********, slavery, no rights etc.So I like to travle in time, only if I will be sure in what level of society I be "puted in". Dream? Not more dream than a time-machine itself
I'd like to be a Pharaon as well -> travel to ancient Egypt.
One where there are clothes or there will be a lot of people going blind from the sight 
Seriously...
Most will pick a time that they think is highly romantic or such. But me I'd go totally selfish and personal. I'd go to 1939 just before the war to meet my granddad. As I've heard so much about him but never met him. As he died not to long after the war.
By the way BNF, where's your answer?
Seriously...
Most will pick a time that they think is highly romantic or such. But me I'd go totally selfish and personal. I'd go to 1939 just before the war to meet my granddad. As I've heard so much about him but never met him. As he died not to long after the war.
By the way BNF, where's your answer?
10 minutes before the big bang
member006
Closed Account
50' is a great choice, I would want to step back just a bit though. Since I would be left there. I would make mine 1946 just post war. To be there for the huge changes in this world that took place slowly into the 50's. That point in time was the last economically stable, ****** oriented time we've had I feel. If my answer can't be year specific, then the 50's decade it is. I wouldn't care to have been in the 40's exclusively, only post war to see the rebuild.
LL
I would go back to 1959 and find those two burly scientists and **** them (assuming they were alive then) so they could not have thrown me into the time machine in the first place and wait until the time continuum re orders itself and I go back to 2007.
I have absolutely no desire to go back in time and stay there permanently. Visit? Sure. Forever? No!
The farther you go back before 1960 the more slavery and lack of women's rights there are. The more disease and poverty. The more wars. ***** slave labour. Go back a few hundred years and there is no democracy.
And what about medical considerations. Go back before penicillin and you get an infection and you die. And since you are not used to all of the various strains of disease from back then; you will probably contract one of them and die. That is what happened to natives when the white man came to North America. Wiped out as much as 80+% of the population through simple diseases.
Also, you are naked and have no money and know no one probably. There are probably few if any government organizations that help the poor; so you are completely on your own; naked and penniless.
But if I could not find these scientists I would go back to December 31, 1959 (or as late in time as I could).
Fortunately, I know allot about major sports history. So I would make a pile of money (ala Back To The Future 2) betting on sports games. So assuming I survived, I would probably end up rich.
Maybe I would consider it...
I have absolutely no desire to go back in time and stay there permanently. Visit? Sure. Forever? No!
The farther you go back before 1960 the more slavery and lack of women's rights there are. The more disease and poverty. The more wars. ***** slave labour. Go back a few hundred years and there is no democracy.
And what about medical considerations. Go back before penicillin and you get an infection and you die. And since you are not used to all of the various strains of disease from back then; you will probably contract one of them and die. That is what happened to natives when the white man came to North America. Wiped out as much as 80+% of the population through simple diseases.
Also, you are naked and have no money and know no one probably. There are probably few if any government organizations that help the poor; so you are completely on your own; naked and penniless.
But if I could not find these scientists I would go back to December 31, 1959 (or as late in time as I could).
Fortunately, I know allot about major sports history. So I would make a pile of money (ala Back To The Future 2) betting on sports games. So assuming I survived, I would probably end up rich.
Maybe I would consider it...
member006
Closed Account
While I am not ignorant nor a male I am white, yet according to your way of thinking the fact that I'm a woman would tip and balance that scale.
So what we have here is the rest of your post. As you well know as do I, you are entitled to your opinion. I just see it a bit different McR. Most of what you listed other than the health concerns still exists in 2007. Look on the bright side, there would be no Aids, so at worst you'd grab the pipes if you made a wrong sexual choice. Penicillin was around for my choice.
As for the back step I would take with my choice being a woman. Well, being a wife and ****** isn't such a bad thing. I embrace motherhood and although my marriage ended it was the person not the act of being a wife. I liked being a wife. Women's rights movement for the most part was a dramatic overkill as far as I'm concerned anyway. Respect is earned and I wouldn't fear being treated any different than now. Maybe in salary and purchasing power (credit) but hell it would be worth it. I could handle myself with anything else I'm sure. I think for the peaceful existence of the late 40's and the 50's I would gladly take a salary cut.
That's the time women started growing, more moving on to college, not just getting married right out of or before finishing high school. It was a great time. Showing up naked and penniless wouldn't hurt my chances of getting a helping hand I'm sure.
LL
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no idea what this means.While I am not ignorant nor a male I am white, yet according to your way of thinking the fact that I'm a woman would tip and balance that scale.
Also, if you notice, I took out the line that you highlighted.
I think you are being naive if you think that the rights you would have at that time would be sufficient for you. It certainly would not be sufficient for me - were I a woman. Study some of the advertisements from that era. Women were best seen and not heard. And what about when your ******** were at school? You would be content to stay home and tend house all day - with little or no choice to do anything else?
No INTERNET. Little choice on television. Many back wards thinking neighbours. All the great movies and books you have already seen or read.
That sounds appealing to you? Not me.
Also watching the way blacks and minorities were treated in your country, even at your time of choosing, would be very painful for me to watch. I for one would hope I would have a difficult time enjoying myself knowing that even then many of my neighbours thought of blacks still as inferior human beings. That I would have to put up with watching them treated as such and risked jeers, ******** or death were I to object too strongly.
And that much of the World was going through terrible times - far more so then now.
From the following website:
Premium Link Upgrade
'Background
Although the number of women at work did continue
to rise after the war, female workers and
career-women were viewed with suspicion by many.
The traditional idea that a woman’s role was a
homemaker raising her ****** was very influential in
1950s USA.
The average age at which women were married was 20 – the youngest for 60 years. Newspaper and magazine articles encouraged women to return to the home. Popular TV shows such as 'I Love Lucy' and '****** Knows Best' carried this message into homes.'
and
'A very influential book was ‘Modern Women: the Lost Sex’ by Maryinia Farnham and Ferdinand Lundgren.
It claimed that most of society’s problems – alcoholism, teenage hooliganism and even war – were because of women following careers instead of being housewives and *******.
Kitchen and cleaning appliances like washing machines, fridges and Hoovers were advertised as being ‘every woman’s dream’.'
You find that appealling?
rian_evilclown
Closed Account
the 60s or just before, two reasons..... the first - free love and all that bollox:nanner: the second? - id record and perform all the beatles and rolling stone ect ect songs before they get on the scene and make a fortune... i would be the greatest songwriter of all time :thefinger
Being a white male I would take 1950.With my knowledge of the past of course I could cash in and live very well.The only bad part would be knowing what the future held and that the lifestyle was not sustainable but i would be dead before that really happened lol.I would go and find Elvis before the Colonel did then head to liverpool and get the beatles signed up.LL Mcrocket does have a valid point on some things though,most women through the 50s were housewives with little options.My ****** was a rare exception having gone to college.I remember her telling me how when she had left my ****** and got a job as a school teacher in 1962 she applied for a credit card and was asked "wheres your husband dearie ".
permanently? if i cant **** the scientists, then i will just enter two seconds earlier than what time it was when i was entering the date and time.
you should have made this easier and said for a day or something like that.
you should have made this easier and said for a day or something like that.
member006
Closed Account
You would have had your post not been edited by you. I just didn't see where being white was a plus or being a woman a minus. So I figured they would cancel each other out.
I didn't notice the edit no, I just quoted you and answered what you stated. I will ask that a mod to remove the line from my quote.As for the woman thing, that era is my hobby of sorts. I have a total fascination with post WWII in this country. So I have read and researched almost everything you mentioned. I didn't choose blindly. I realize the things that would be missed, but I also realize the things that would be gained. Fresher air, less population, less additives to my food to **** me sooner etc. I am a strong woman and perhaps that time wouldn't be right for some women. I have no fear though a "tough cookie" here.
The only sucky thing again is the lack of equal pay for equal work and being unable to deal with banks, mortgages and "buy on time" credit issues. Doors were closed on that. Then again, no credit less debt, less getting in trouble. I am after all a woman. lol As I had stated it was when they began to blossom and things began to change for those "chained to a stove". I love to cook and clean, I loved being a wife when I was and adore being a ******. I have also been the two job breadwinner and the single ***. So in conclusion, life is tough and you do what you have to do. He asked us to pick and I picked what worked for me.
LL
10mins before when lucy pinder stripping her clothes
Similar threads
