[ SECRET POST #5175 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5175 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #741.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

IDK, but my take on it is: too much technology and less human connection in the present time (or what is considered "present time" in the fiction you are reading/watching)? Stay behind in the past with your true love and life may not be easier, but you've connected with them and it'll be easier to bear? Plus, less technology in the past- perhaps a simpler life- means more connecting with your partner, the other villagers or whatever, so lots of new friends to make. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[philstar22]

Even if I could give up some technology, I wouldn't be willing to give up medical care.

[(Anonymous)]

Same here.

[(Anonymous)]

Thinking about it that way, there's kind of an...unconscious ableism, maybe, in these kinds of stories treating it like a choice? I dunno if that's the right way to put it, but it occurs to me that plenty of people *couldn't* choose to live in the past with their lover because they require modern medicine to survive, and I don't think I've ever seen any of these types of stories acknowledge that because the heroines are always conveniently perfectly healthy and don't even so much as need glasses or anything.

[philstar22]

That's a good point. I need glasses. But more importantly, I have asthma and migraines that require medication and would probably kill me and certainly would keep me bedridden if I were in the past. And my mental illness would quite possibly make me want to kill myself without my meds. Not exactly the path to a great life if I were sent to the past.

[erinptah]

Mmmyep.

Not only does the staying-in-the-past protagonist not already rely on modern medical care, we're supposed to take for granted that she will never need modern medical care. It would make the ending awfully unhappy if you imagine her dying horribly from an infected cut, or a heart attack, or a bad tooth, or appendicitis...so you're supposed to assume there's no way any of that can happen.

It's all tied up with this cultural assumption that the natural state of society is to provide everything a Good Person needs. And so, unmanageably bad medical situations -- whether it's an acute crisis, or a chronic health issue, or whatever -- can only happen to Bad People who somehow deserve it.

/already relies on modern medical care

[philstar22]

The weird thing to me is that my one friend who is most into this show is a disabled friend who has a chronic illness that requires modern medicine and still makes even modern life difficult for her to manage. I'm never going to have this conversation with her. Not going to ruin her fantasy. But I just don't get it myself.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, if I had been born more than 10 years earlier than I was, I'd be dead. The treatment for the cancer I had wasn't developed until the 1980s, and simply removing it would have also killed me.

The only positive side, I guess, is fewer allergies in pre-industrialised societies. (Other diseases seemed less but only because we weren't living long enough to get them, but allergies actually are more common and increasing in developed countries.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. For the past 7 years I've had controlled high blood pressure and without the blood pressure medication I take, my lifespan would probably be shortened. Multiple doctors have told me there's really nothing I can do besides take the medication because I'm not overweight, eating a heart-unhealthy diet, or inactive. If I was thrown back in time before the right kinds of drugs were available, I might not make it to old age.

I also use glasses/contacts so being too far in the past would mean I would have to navigate the world with pretty shitty eyesight.

I'm otherwise very healthy and look young for my age, but I would be kind of screwed if I were stuck in the past.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm actually not as bothered by Claire and Jamie, because Claire's just been a nurse in WWII and has seen a vast amount of death and destruction so I do think your theory applies to her - technological advances that she's seen are primarily in warfare, and people die the same way. The major benefit she's seen is anesthetic, and as a frontline nurse she probably didn't get to use a lot of that either.

But in general I 100% agree with the secret poster. No contraception, no antibiotics, and a childbirth mortality rate around 20% at best? And infant mortality of 25% at best, often much higher? No connection is worth that.

[(Anonymous)]

...mate, penicillin was invented* in 1942. The earliest antibacterials were invented 1907-1932. I don't know a nurse on the planet who'd be keen to practice medicine in the days when any open cut could kill a healthy man.


*Technically it was just purified and concentrated to a more useful form, but 'invented' is faster

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks for the condescending explanation with the wrong dates, mate!

It was "discovered" in 1928 by Fleming, and refined into a usable antibiotic in 1940 by Florey. One of my relatives was involved in developing it and another relative was one of the first civilians to be treated with it. But it didn't make it out to the field hospitals for active treatment until 1944 because it was too difficult to make in quantity, and where Claire was serving on the frontlines she probably never got to use it, as it wasn't used in primary treatment.

Sulfa drugs were indeed earlier and Claire would have used them, but they were only effective for a short time before bacteria developed resistance, and only for a relatively small number of bacterial infections. A huge improvement on previous attempts but still relatively limited.

[sparklywalls]

I get it. But personally I’d be less bothered by the lack of technology and more concerned with the fact my eye sight is so bad without corrective lenses that I can’t see properly much more than an inch in front of me.

I know glasses have been a thing for ages but I’d definitely miss my contact lenses. This is another reason I wouldn’t enjoy actually surviving apocalyptic scenarios where civilisation is totally broken...eventually my contact lenses will run out and I’ll probably break my glasses.

I’d also miss more reliable birth control considering the risk of dying in childbirth would be higher.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Oh yes, I would definitely miss my contacts. I am so terribly nearsighted, and wearing glasses all the time gives me headaches.

[(Anonymous)]

Ive got a chronic health problem that requires medication. It's for life. Emotional connections won't mean much to me if I'm dead, which is likely without modern medicine.