Thought for the Day:
Setting aside the genuine existential threats we face, I believe doomsaying resonates with people because it is difficult to accept that the world will continue without us after we die. The belief in an impending apocalypse, affecting not just our own lives but everyone’s, serves to comfort the ego.
The poor have always been among us, and we have often treated those less fortunate than ourselves with inhuman contempt. Such is the case with the Vagabonds Act: a 1547 act of English law that authorized the enslavement and branding of the unhoused and itinerant.
Medieval England was a society that valued stability, order, and clear social hierarchies above all else. Those who did not fit neatly into this structure – whether by choice or circumstance – could therefore often find themselves viewed with suspicion or hostility.
English law made a distinction between those deemed to be the “deserving poor” — those who could not work due to age, disability, or illness — and the “undeserving poor”: wanderers, beggars, and “masterless men.” The former were issued licenses denoting them as such and were eligible to beg without punishment and receive alms from their local parish. The latter were stripped of their freedom and mutilated.
Under the Vagabonds Act, an unemployed person who refused an offer of employment, or a gainfully employed person who refused to accept a lowered wage, could be arrested by their would-be employer and brought before the court. Provided the accuser had two witnesses to the offer and its refusal, the accused was pronounced guilty and sentenced to the prescribed punishments.
First, the vagabond would be placed in shackles and beaten, and then they were branded with a white-hot iron “V” on their chest. Afterwards, the prisoner was then sold to their accuser or another family of means and condemned to two years of “such work and labour how vile soever it be as he shall put him onto.”
I caught the Ashley Madison documentary on Netflix. Ever tell you about the husband of a woman I worked with who got outed in that info dump? This was after I had quit, but it was such a cliché. They were a very religious couple, and not the “walk in Christ’s footsteps” kind. I’ve known a few good folks like that. These two? The other kind: self-righteous, judgmental, using the Bible to beat people down.
We used to have serious fights about sexual orientation. She thought it was a choice. Fought, fought, fought. Evolution too. She once accidentally CC’d me in an email where she told our coworkers she hated my guts. Yeah, it was that bad. But you know what they say, judge yourself by your enemies.
So, Ashley Madison. The husband, Mr. Perfect, had an account under his own name (of course) and a username: “The Ravisher.” I kid you not. THE RAVISHER.
They divorced, obviously. That’s all I know because I lost track of them, thankfully. I had forgotten all about this until the documentary jogged my memory. Honestly, I can’t imagine how anyone—THE RAVISHER included—thought things would end any other way with that website. It was a honeypot, a blackmail machine in the making. For the record, I wouldn’t know firsthand. I’m an old-fashioned, one-woman man.
That said, I’m not in the judging business either. Different strokes for different folks. It's your thing, do whatcha wanna do. If you’re into non-monogamy, best to be upfront and find people on the same page. That’s what really made THE RAVISHER the bad guy. He and Mrs. Stone Thrower should’ve had a conversation and gone their separate ways if they couldn’t work it out.
At least that's my take, but like I said, I'm old-fashioned. But not old fashioned enough to throw stones at people about their sex lives.
