I just started a paragraph with:
To my disappointment, Mrs. Russo had informed me that a prescription was required for the K-Y jelly.
K-Y wasn't available over-the-counter until 1980. This is in 1956 when a prescription was required.
I didn't know that until I did a little research on the product. There's a good chance that most (maybe all) of my readers won't know that either and get pulled out of the story thinking, "Huh? That's not true."
Opinions?
There's a good chance that most (maybe all) of my readers won't know that either and get pulled out of the story thinking, "Huh? That's not true."
Opinions?
If the story is set in 1956, then it should be as accurate as possible.
Put an * at the end of that sentence, and then at the end of that chapter another * with the explanation that it was prescription only until 1980.
Given the rate of change over the last few decades, any story set only 40 years ago is going to have things that someone who's 30 or younger very probably won't be aware of.
My nieces & nephews all take being able to make a phone call or text someone, not to mention take a photo and send it to their friends then & there whenever they want as being perfectly normal.
I have to admit i'm still amazed by it. Hell i was amazed by the technology when we got a fax machine at work- those nephews & nieces don't have the slightest idea of what a fax machine was.
My nieces & nephews all take being able to make a phone call or text someone, not to mention take a photo and send it to their friends then & there whenever they want as being perfectly normal.
This is in 1956 when a prescription was required.
If you've been very blatant in mentioning it that your story takes place in 1956, then I wouldn't put any kind of footnote or other description. Now, if you're doing a do-over story, then you could simply make the next line something about, 'Damn, tripped up by history again.'
Let's face it - there's a LOT of stuff that wasn't available in 1956 without a prescription that we can get OTC today. Condoms, anyone? (I know, you didn't need a prescription, but you also couldn't just walk into the drug store and buy them off the shelf, either.)
Now, if you're doing a do-over story, then you could simply make the next line something about, 'Damn, tripped up by history again.'
Actually, that's interesting. It's not a do-over story, but the story is told by a 1st-person narrator in the present about her life, so I could add something like: "It's hard to believe now that back then you needed a prescription for that." But I was trying not to jump into the present until the end. I remember disliking in "The Green Mile" when the 1st-person narrator said something like: "I found out later after reading the reportβ¦"
But do I need it? Explaining it doesn't add anything to the story. And there are many other things that happen that wouldn't happen today (like no SexEd in school, no internet to learn about sex, very different mores, etc.).
But do I need it?
Since your story is set in 1956, then I wouldn't put anything in so far as explanation. If the readers have an issue with it, that's on them. That so many people today can't deal with the fact that applying societal mores from TODAY on the society that existed a 65 years ago isn't your fault. Hell, think about things from the perspective of how the military has changed how they'd do something. In WWII, if we needed to take out a factory, we'd blow up a whole town in an air raid, and if there were 20,000 civilians killed, then too bad. Now we can't even blow up a mosque that we KNOW is being used to cache weapons because it might 'offend' someone.
Joke'em if they can't take a fuck ... or something like that. (Beware, I've been drinking adult beverages tonight and I'm writing another chapter - I tend to speak my mind without any filters.) (Yeah, I do that normally, but I also might not actually MAKE the post.)
Since your story is set in 1956,
Actually, it begins in 1956. It is going to span the woman's life until the present. As a 1st-person narrator, she's recollecting her life starting with something that happened in 1956..
Since your story is set in 1956, then I wouldn't put anything in so far as explanation.
I eventually created a preface to one of my series because I received so many 'but that is not true' comments on fully and completely researched topics (not just relying on memory).
" But I was trying not to jump into the present until the end. I remember disliking in "The Green Mile" when the 1st-person narrator said something like: "I found out later after reading the reportβ¦"
There are more artful was to handle that sort of thing.
I've read a few including 1 or 2 DTP books that start with a scene of an old man telling the tale to younger men or children which then faded into the real story. Then they had the occasional scene that popped back to the story teller having a conversation with his audience.
That didn't bother me as long as the transitions to the story teller and then back to the story were well handled and it wasn't overused.
The ones I thought were best handled had the scene with the story teller start with a member of the audience interrupting the story to interject a comment or ask a question.
"Grandma, we don't need a prescription to by personal lubricants"
"You did back then, now hush and let me finish the story."
Let's face it - there's a LOT of stuff that wasn't available in 1956 without a prescription that we can get OTC today. Condoms, anyone? (I know, you didn't need a prescription, but you also couldn't just walk into the drug store and buy them off the shelf, either.)
But you could buy them from a coin-operated machine in any filling station restroom - or from your local barber.
I hit this in 1980, so have the opposite experience:
"Yes, Ma'am. Some friends asked me to help. Oh, and a tube of KY Jelly." KY had just become available over-the-counter, I was pretty sure. There were boxes of it stocked with the condoms, anyway. Unlike my later years, when there were plenty of choices for lubricants, it was the best available in 1980. You had to brave the same scowling gazes to get it, though. Might as well get some now. We could stash it somewhere in case anyone needed some.
I had a lot of fun with my characters' first trip to the drug store to buy condoms and K-Y Jelly - and so did they. Of course, it's a do-over, so you can get away with split perspectives.
By and large, it depends on the subject whether I'll toss in an explanation. K-Y got one, for instance, but other things haven't.
I have gotten some interesting questions from readers. The most common ones have involved phrases and whether or not they'd have been in common usage at the time. Those are often harder to explain.
Obviously you can't get away with a direct commentary outside of there being some time-travel aspect, but I agree with others that, mostly, you should set things where they're set and let the chips fall where they may. Anything set significantly in the past will have things that may confuse people.
I'm not in favor of footnoting, in general. Let readers ask, or Google up the answer for themselves. I tend to find footnotes pull me out of the story much more than surprises like that.
I'm not in favor of footnoting, in general. Let readers ask, or Google up the answer for themselves. I tend to find footnotes pull me out of the story much more than surprises like that.
Agree
I'm not in favor of footnoting, in general. Let readers ask, or Google up the answer for themselves. I tend to find footnotes pull me out of the story much more than surprises like that.
I had to think about this, 'cause my first reaction was "Huh?".
Then I realized that there are 'dumb' footnotes and 'smart' footnotes.
'dumb': the user has to scroll down to the bottom, read the footnote and scroll back up and search for the position he was actually reading.
'smart': there is html code involved, the user clicks on the superscript (e.g. "*", "1", "2") and it jumps to the footnote text. At the end of the footnote is a "β©", when clicked on it jumps back to the footnote in the text.
I know the 'smart footnotes work with at least some eBook readers.
If they work with the SOL system or get stripped from the provided html text is a question only Lazeez can answer.
This is how it's done (I inserted blanks after the opening bracket so the mail system won't hopefully not interfere):
Some text with a footnote.< sup>< a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1< /a>< /sup>
< sup id="fn1">1. [Text of footnote 1] < a href="#ref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">β©< /a>< /sup>
Lazeez, would this work with SOL?
HM.
BTW, I found this somewhere as a HTML tip, but don't remember where an who provided the tip.
This is how it's done (I inserted blanks after the opening bracket so the mail system won't hopefully not interfere):
Some text with a footnote.< sup>< a href="#fn1" id="ref1">1< /a>< /sup>
< sup id="fn1">1. [Text of footnote 1] < a href="#ref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.">β©< /a>< /sup>
Lazeez, would this work with SOL?
Basically simple html but if you go the html way I would prefer a tooltip so you don't have to jump: hover on desktop and tap on a phone or tablet.
I would prefer a tooltip so you don't have to jump
Keet, it's over 20 years since I've worked with tooltips in my programs. Back then the displayed text was quite limited in size, no pictures. 'Smart' footnotes (really end-of-chapter-notes) are not limited in size. I didn't try pictures yet.
HM.
Back then the displayed text was quite limited in size, no pictures. 'Smart' footnotes (really end-of-chapter-notes) are not limited in size. I didn't try pictures yet.
I programmed my custom library with html/CSS/javascript and I have tooltips fully styled as I want including images. Check out this calculator page on ReaderInfo: https://readerinfo.net/calculators#PersonSize and see a small example of such a tooltip. The dotted underline signifies a tooltip. Other pages on the calculator pages also have a few of such tooltips.
Lazeez, would this work with SOL?
No. Unsupported html is stripped away and anchors are not supported.
I'm not in favor of footnoting, in general. Let readers ask, or Google up the answer for themselves. I tend to find footnotes pull me out of the story much more than surprises like that.
I had fun explaining to two of my kids that they were older than Google. My Youngest is also, but only by a month, and Backrub is a year older than her.
Not really pertinent to the full discussion, but it does point out that there are things we sometimes forget the age of.
Real life regularly confuses me. People do and say things for some seriously dumbass reasons on a regular basis. They don't seem to learn from it either. That confuses me greatly.
I just started a paragraph with:
To my disappointment, Mrs. Russo had informed me that a prescription was required for the K-Y jelly.
That's all you need to say. If a reader has difficulty with that, then they're really going to have trouble when someone drives a Beetle or brags about their sporty new '56 Studebaker Hawk. Or girls wearing a bullet bra and a poodle skirt.
No point in trying to cater to the clueless, unless you're selling burgers and fries.
Heck, people still read and enjoy Sherlock Holmes stories, even though they talk about Hansom Cabs and Gasogenes. Holmes and Watson spend considerable time on the English moors - but few of them were of Arab or African descent.
Holmes and Watson spend considerable time on the English moors - but few of them were of Arab or African descent.
I actually chuckled reading that one.
I think that a lot of this would fall under the audience's faith in your accuracy and self-selection.
The people who just don't get that things were different 65 years ago probably aren't going to read the story. It won't be just about this example, it will be everything.
For the people who do stay, suspension of disbelief on specific things, like needing prescriptions for K-Y jelly, will be dependent on overall believability of everything else. If you establish the narrator as fairly reliable and your history as fairly accurate, then most readers will accept the bits they didn't know since there will be other bits they did know and you got those right.
Honestly, I was more surprised by K-Y being available at all in 1956 than by it requiring a prescription.
I was more surprised by K-Y being available at all in 1956 than by it requiring a prescription.
It was created as a surgical lubricant in 1904, but quickly gained popularity for use with sex so a non-sterile version was on shelves later that same year. In 1917, it was actually marketed as a personal product. But it was by prescription only until 1980. I can't find out why. I guess because it was a sex product.
I once read an article that said not to write what you know ("write what you know" is typical writing advice) but to write what you don't know so you have to research it and learn something new.
In my story, I originally had a jar of Vaseline in the scene but decided to make sure that was safe to use. It wasn't and I learned about sex lubricants. Of course I heard of K-Y but, like you, didn't think it was around in 1956. So I googled it to see if it was and that's when I learned about the prescription only until 1980.
I originally had a jar of Vaseline in the scene but decided to make sure that was safe to use. It wasn't
I'm curious as to why. I recently had to use Vaseline for medical reasons. (Actually I didn't use Vaseline itself but a cheaper generic alternative - same ingredients).
AJ
TLDR: Not meant as a lubricant. For External use (on the skin) only.
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=eb182cdf-985e-4039-b426-fcbaef1ef78d
INDICATIONS & USAGE
Uses - οΏ temporarily protects minor βcuts βscrapes βburns - οΏ temporarily protects and helps relieve chapped or cracked skin and lips - οΏ helps protect from the drying effects of wind and cold ...
Warnings
For External Use Only
When using this product do not get into eyes
See a doctor if condition lasts more than 7 days
Do not use on βͺdeep or puncture wounds βͺanimal bites βͺserious burns
Keep out of reach of children. If swallowed get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.
I still don't understand.
As long as you don't use Vaseline to assist a blowjob, surely it counts as external use in the spirit of the meaning above.
ETA There are over 900 SOL stories containing the word 'vaseline'. On the first two pages, there were two stories that might not have employed vaseline as a sexual lubricant. I wonder how likely it is that none of the authors have actually used it for that purpose.
AJ
As long as you don't use Vaseline to assist a blowjob, surely it counts as external use in the spirit of the meaning above.
My understanding is that the interior of the vagina is a mucus membrane like the inside of the nose or the inside of the mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucous_membrane
It would not be considered "external".
As long as you don't use Vaseline to assist a blowjob, surely it counts as external use in the spirit of the meaning above.
1. Vaseline is NOT a lubricant, for anything.
2. My understanding is that the interior of the vagina is a mucus membrane like the inside of the nose or the inside of the mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucous_membrane
Once you get past the surface anatomy and have achieved penetration, no that isn't external.
My understanding is that the interior of the vagina is a mucus membrane like the inside of the nose or the inside of the mouth.
But vaseline is used inside the nose. And it's greasy - it's a jelly - so it's better than no lubrication.
I remain unconvinced :-(
AJ
But vaseline is used inside the nose.
Have you ever done so under a doctor's instructions? I ask because such a use would not be compliant with the product's usage instructions.
so it's better than no lubrication.
Technically true, but I'm skeptical that it would be that much better unless the guy has a short fuse.
There are other household products that would probably work better. Cooking oil, baby oil, butter.
Have you ever done so under a doctor's instructions?
Not me, but my mother - this is decades ago, so in the intervening time it would seem someone, somewhere has had a suboptimal reaction (possibly to do with thrush, as Vaseline is not advised for use with Athlete's Foot even though that's an external use). Just because a few people react adversely when 'misusing' the product, is not a reason for nobody to use it so - but quite adequate reason for the manufacturers to put a warning on the product to CTA like a 'warning - coffee is hot' thing. SB's note of the condom damage is IMO why, but that risk of damage extends to the 'natural' oily products as well.
Anyway, my uses of Vaseline have been as a substitute for silicone grease as a water-repellent packing (for high-voltage connections) and lubrication on difficult-to-access screw threads, so I certainly use it as lubrication, but not in the 'personal' sense. Until recently, when 'her indoors' pinched it, I was still on the small glass jar that I bought in the late '70s
Have you ever done so under a doctor's instructions?
Personally no. But I've seen it recommended many times in articles written by allegedly qualified doctors as one of the armoury of weapons against hay fever: the pollen grains are purportedly trapped by the blobs of vaseline just inside the nostrils.
I've also seen it purportedly used in TV forensic dramas where the cadaver to be autopsied is particularly ripe.
AJ
But I've seen it recommended many times in articles written by allegedly qualified doctors as one of the armoury of weapons against hay fever: the pollen grains are purportedly trapped by the blobs of vaseline just inside the nostrils.
That sounds nonsensical to me, unless to are using enough to plug the nostrils forcing you to breath through your mouth. Pollen particles can be quite small, and they aren't all going to land right inside the nostril.
I've also seen it purportedly used in TV forensic dramas where the cadaver to be autopsied is particularly ripe.
I wouldn't put much faith in anything seen on a TV forensic drama
That sounds nonsensical to me, unless to are using enough to plug the nostrils forcing you to breath through your mouth. Pollen particles can be quite small, and they aren't all going to land right inside the nostril.
I don't know whether it works but even my borked version of google turns up pages of results, some from medical sources. To be fair, the majority recommend putting vaseline around the nostrils. Fewer advocate inside.
AJ
I've also seen it purportedly used in TV forensic dramas where the cadaver to be autopsied is particularly ripe.
AJ
That is not KY Jelly but Vicks VapoRub and it isn't placed in the nose but along the upper lip.
I'm curious as to why.
From Medical News Today https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325946
Vaseline's creators did not design the product for sexual lubrication
Vaseline can damage condoms.
Vaseline may increase the risk of infection.
From Healthline https://www.healthline.com/health/vaseline-as-lube#What-the-science-says
Vaseline can be difficult to clean or wash away after sex. It may take several days for the lube to work its way out of your body entirely.
According to one study, women who use petroleum jelly inside their vaginas are 2.2 times more likely to test positive for bacterial vaginosis than women who don't use petroleum jelly.
If you're planning to use latex or polyurethane condoms, you can't use Vaseline.
Petroleum-based products may stain sheets or clothing with greasy spots. If you plan to use Vaseline as a lube, protect your sheets or any fabrics you may come in contact with to avoid stains
Vaseline may increase the risk of infection.
Yet when I was kid, I believe my mother put Vaseline on a rectal thermometer before inserting it in my butt.
But this probably had more to do with:
a) Her knowledge level without access to the internet,
b) what she had available, and
c) what she needed to get done.
If you were young enough that you couldn't safely use an oral thermometer and sick enough that she needed your temperature, any potential risk was probably not high on her list of concerns even if she knew about it.
Yet when I was kid, I believe my mother put Vaseline on a rectal thermometer before inserting it in my butt.
Politely, ALL of our mom's did.
You're also STILL supposed to use it for kids under 5. And using petroleum jelly is recommended for lubrication.
Specialists recommend that rectal thermometer must be preferably used in children below five years of age, as it is the most accurate way to get reading.
1: Once the thermometer has been cleaned using a soapy solution, sterilize it with rubbing alcohol.
2: For painless procedure and ease of use, do not forget to use lubricant. Usually, petroleum jelly is preferred as it does not irritate the soft tissues.
According to one study, women who use petroleum jelly inside their vaginas are 2.2 times more likely to test positive for bacterial vaginosis than women who don't use petroleum jelly.
Hmm, after reading the Wikipedia entry about BV, the conclusion in the mentioned study is highly suspect, because there are so many probable causes for BV. E.g. douching is considered one of the main risks for developing BV. If the women who use petroleum jelly are also douching more frequently and this is not considered in the study β like only comparing probands with the same douche frequency β then the cited numbers are irrelevant to the implicated cause of using petroleum jelly.
HM.
Vaseline can damage condoms.
Vaseline may increase the risk of infection.
Both true. By comparison, KY Jelly contains an antiseptic.
AJ
By comparison, KY Jelly contains an antiseptic.
It was originally developed as a surgical lubricant.
KY Jelly contains an antiseptic
And therefore may cause an imbalance of the naturally occurring bacteria in the vagina resulting in BV.
HM.
Actually, not even the company knows the origin of the name, although they have officially denied the two common popular stories. So your explanation is as good as any.
For reference, the two popular but apocryphal stories are that it's an acronym for the original ingredients or that it was created in Kentucky.
Vicks Vaporub is what coroners and crime scene investigators use, not plain Vasoline.
Last time I participated in a necropsy, I neglected to have any available. Bad move.
Vicks Vaporub is what coroners and crime scene investigators use, not plain Vasoline.
And I believe that it is applied to the space between the upper lip and nose, not to the interior of the nostrils.
The idea is that the strong smell of the Vaporub overwhelms any other scents,
I've heard disputed stories on this.
Some people absolutely do use it for that purpose, but other professionals in the field point out that Vicks' actual function is to clear nasal passages and promotes larger breaths, which in turn means the smell would be stronger since you're getting more air.
From what I've seen on this the idea is that the Vicks' itself has a very strong odor (even if it isn't unpleasant) so by putting it right below your nostrils, the smell of the Vicks' will overload the scent receptors in your nose making it impossible to smell anything else.
Whether this actually works or not, I have no idea.
Whether this actually works or not, I have no idea.
It does. Now, whether you have a strong enough stomach to deal with the source of the smell when you're looking at it is another discussion. Especially when the source has been dead for several days. The scene in 'Silence of the Lambs' is NOT fiction as far as that bit.
Whether this actually works or not, I have no idea.
It does work in that it helps. It may not full cover or stop the smell at times but it in a sense of the word make it tolerable.
Look to history about the plague masks (those masks with the big nose that Doctors wore) The long large nose was to hold the Doctors dried flowers, strong-smelling herbs, and camphor or vinegar-soaked sponges to name some of the items they used and was used to cover up the smell of death as well in their belief at the time make the air safer to breath.
It may not full cover or stop the smell
When I used to change my baby's doody diaper, I wore a nose clip (used by swimmers).
Oddly (or not), while I have a fairly good sense of smell, I never once had a problem with even the most explosive of diapers. Fortunate, that, because I changed quite a lot of them.
The idea is that the strong smell of the Vaporub overwhelms any other scents
Yes, but when you cut into a polar bear that's been dead for a few days to find out why he died - it's not the Vaporub scent that's overwhelming. You could coat yourself from head to toe with Vaporub (Kinky!) and still smell last week's fish dinner Mr. Bear ate.
But it's not true that (in the US) that you needed a prescription.
You don't need a prescription in the US today. That doesn't mean you didn't need one in 1956.
But it's not true that (in the US) that you needed a prescription.
That was the point of my question. In 1956 you needed a prescription for K-Y. It didn't become over-the-counter until 1980.
So if someone reading my story reads that a prescription is required, they might think the author is nuts.
No prescription was required in the 60s. It was on the shelf at the pharmacy. It might have been restricted in some states.
No prescription was required in the 60s.
That's not what I'm reading. Every article says OTC in 1980. But the other post on UK vs US got me thinking so I did more research for the U.S. From https://www.k-y.com/pages/about
1980
K-Y becomes a bedroom staple
We finally get the green light to sell our lubes in stores across North America. We go on to become synonymous with sex and an icon of the era.
I know it was available in 1973 in Philadelphia on the shelf. It was the first time I had heard of it. The girl I was with purchased it and later gave an interactive lesson in how it was used.
That was the point of my question. In 1956 you needed a prescription for K-Y. It didn't become over-the-counter until 1980.
I recall a sex-related article telling readers not to be embarrassed about buying KY Jelly because it had lots of uses other than as a sexual lubricant. Unfortunately I can't remember what they were, or why they weren't valid uses until 1980 ;-)
AJ
from an article in the Guardian
K-Y Jelly was first sold under prescription in 1917, but has been available over the counter since 1980. It is sold in over 50 countries, with the US, Canada and Brazil accounting for the majority of its sales.
It apparently was prescription-only in the UK.
However, all this is beside the point. No female would have dared ask for a personal lubricant at a pharmacy in the 1950's. A sure way to be labelled the town whore.
Back then, Gryn & Barrett wasn't just a law firm.
Original KY non sterile jelly was not subject to regulation until enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Food and Drug Act. Lubes, including petroleum jelly and KY available before May 18 1976 were grandfathered and not subject to approval. They didn't need any prescription. Adam and Eve sold it mail order in the late 60s early 70s.
Subsequent changes to the product after 1976 did require approval as medical devices.
At no point does the KY website indicate anything about it being a prescription only product. The source of that myth is the Guardian article.
