Cozy Andrew and Abby

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:26 pm

theebmonique @ Sat May 28, 2005 3:17 pm wrote:Hmm...that's a thought. Maybe she was thinking..."Another one like Lizzie ???"

Tracy...

Ok that would scare anyone from wanting to have children

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:50 pm

But Lizzie was still young when Abby would have been thinking of conceiving and might have stirred Abby's maternal instincts more than she would have discouraged them.

Face it ladies.. When we are around babies and young kids--we sorta want one--even if it is only for 2 seconds!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 28, 2005 5:22 pm

I think, depending upon how religious Andrew was, that he probably felt it was a duty to be married and keep his home monogamous. He probably had several reasons to re-marry, but I think he would expect the wife to fulfill her wifely duties regardless of her age, size, health, or state or non-state of pregnancy.
Men just didn't take into account these niceties mentioned here. They owned the woman and could do what they liked.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat May 28, 2005 6:50 pm

I do agree with Kat that Andrew would have expected Abby to be compliant in that area... And I think that in return, Abby expected to add that to her life...

Again, I hope she had some passion in her life-- But for some reason I doubt she did.

john · Post by **john** » Sat May 28, 2005 8:16 pm

I think older men are more appreciative of the wonderfull blessings of women. Also, (there I go starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction again) Audrey hit an interesting point right on the mark.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 28, 2005 10:49 pm

I suppose it's a sign of frustration that Abby grew in size.

Also, Lizzie was supposedly OK to live with up until the transferring of the deed in the Whitehead-Gray family, c. 1887. That's when Lizzie stops calling Abby "Mother."
Even Hiram Harrington says Lizzie was not too difficult earlier on, and that there was considered even a good relationship when Abby joined the family.

Personally, I think Lizzie might have displayed some hysteronics and a penchant for melodrama in her early teens, and maybe never quite grew out of that. But families can live with occasional tantrums as long as there is overt affection.

What this means to me is I doubt during Abby's childbearing years Lizzie was any reason not to have children.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Come to think of it, in 1887, Abby was already 59, which means she was probably out of menopause. I would think menopause back then was a B_ _ _ _.
So Abby and Lizzie got through that OK, only to fall out later? Hmmm...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun May 29, 2005 12:21 am

Allen @ Sat May 28, 2005 3:26 pm wrote:
theebmonique @ Sat May 28, 2005 3:17 pm wrote:Hmm...that's a thought. Maybe she was thinking..."Another one like Lizzie ???"

Tracy...
Ok that would scare anyone from wanting to have children

This comment of mine was basically a joke. I know Lizzie was still very young when Abby became her step mother, and that the relationship probably did not start off in a bad way. I think it was lead in this direction by the hand of Emma, for whatever reason.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 29, 2005 1:42 am

I'm trying to picture Lizzie and Abby's relationship while Abby went through menopause. The comments which you all made previously led me to wonder about this- it must have been hard.
Abby might have begun having her own fluctuating mood swings at age..what? Maybe age 48? Year 1876. Also by year 1873, Abby may have begun to be unable to conceive, even if she ever could (age 45).
The joking is leading me to wonder about these other issues.
We don't know how Abby was in the home during those trying times.

What else was going on back then? Maybe some bad feelings were being bandied about the household even more previous than we have learned?
So that it's more as you all joked- after all- you see.
Trying to picture bad Lizzie and Emma harrassing a menopausal Abby.

It sounds like a nighmare!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun May 29, 2005 2:12 am

I originally meant my "another one like Lizzie" post to be a joke...because Abby would have been past her child bearing years (most likely) by the time Lizzie would have become a poster child for birth control.

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun May 29, 2005 4:42 pm

I have wondered if Abby's size began to grow before or after the property transfer incident.

Could she have been feeding a hungry heart?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 29, 2005 7:05 pm

I'm thinking it's possible a foundation of bugging Abby may have started earlier than we thought.
So it would be interesting to figure out what else was going on around 1876 + or -.
Abby's menopause is not something we are going to be reading about, I don't think.

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Sun May 29, 2005 10:17 pm

I think the trouble between Abby and Lizzie began much earlier than 1876. There is a wonderful piece written by the past curator of the Lizzie Borden Bed & Breakfast (Museum) in one of the Lizzie Borden Quarterly Newsletter which began publishing in 1993 but ended in 2003, I believe. Mr. Bill Pavao writes an extensive piece about Abby that makes her human and three-dimensional to the reader. He describes how there was a subliminal tug of war with Lizzie between Abby and Emma. Emma asserted her sisterly rights to mother the baby Lizzie - as mandated by her mother making her promise to do so.

I will post more about my thinking of Abby and another reason "the girls" had so much disdain for her in the next day or so. I will have to formulate my thoughts more before I do. It's something that has not been brought out or emphasized much so far as I know.[/quote]

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon May 30, 2005 12:30 am

Of course it's understood that 1876 is an arbitrary date based upon a question of extra friction due to Abby's menopause. No date about this long-term event in the reproductive life of Abby is written in stone or to be taken as a strict foundation.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon May 30, 2005 12:15 pm

I can not imagine the women in Abby's day got a lot of support during menopause. I doubt they had a lot of information at their disposal and it was a pure hell....

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue May 31, 2005 4:51 pm

I can agree that at that time, women most probably had no support system when they were going through menopause. Not to bring up the whole opiate user thing again, but in trying to find out more on menopause during the nineteenth century, I found information that opiates were commonly prescribed for menstrual or menopause related discomforts. I have been trying to find information on the options women had in the nineteenth century in dealing with menopause. So far I have found some interesting information about how women and their sexuality and fertility were viewed. It was, of course, the job of the victorian woman to get married and have children. Anything that stood in the way of this duty, including birth control, was seen as evil or sinful. Menstruation and menopause were viewed as causes for insanity or mental instability. Menopause was viewed during some periods in history as an indication that the woman had been so sinful her reproductive organs became too foul to produce offspring. Spinsters were looked on with pity, or worse disdain for never having a family. I did find a few interesting tid bits about woman, menopause, and female fertility on sites I have not listed, I figured I would only list the ones I thought would be the most helpful. But I do have the others book marked if anyone is interested in looking them over.

http://www.geocities.com/menobeyond/medicaloptions.html

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/hi ... woman.html

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/femh ... cine.shtml

http://courses.albion.edu/Archived_Fall ... ontrol.htm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:41 pm

Thank you! I haven't explored this topic yet fully. Appreciate it!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:45 pm

Women today are not exactly looked upon with glee when they do not have children-- either by choice or design. They are asked if they are a lesbian or if something was wrong and they couldn't have children...

It is still seen as something we women do... Period.

Menopause... Lord-- I hate the word and the very idea of it... While there may be a lot of options as far as medication and other services go-- we are still pretty much expected to get through it without growing a mustache and beginning to stoop...

beckygoddess · Post by **beckygoddess** » Tue May 31, 2005 9:54 pm

I don't think that "unmarried woman" stigma carries the same connotation it once did. Not since women's lib in the 1970's anyway. Women in the workplace, expansion of professional career ladders, THE PILL, and the changing of society's mechanisms for meeting/matching male to female - have all contributed to more women being accepted as single women - without children. Even those who choose not to marry still feel the tug of their biological clock and thanks to modern science and chemistry, can still be "unmarried mothers." But if they choose not to have children, married or not, I think society is much more accepting of those choices than they were even 30 or 40 years ago, let alone a hundred and ten years ago.

Personally, I think the combination of AIDs and the internet has had a lot to do with men and women remaining single longer or not hooking up at all. Before AIDS, hooking up at the local cocktail lounge after work was the norm. That ended in late 80's. The explosion of dating services is a testament to how things have changed. I think it's mutually acknowledged by both sexes how difficult it is to meet a future "partner". Meanwhile, they go on with their careers - and grow older - and eventually pass menopause - without children. And as the numbers grow with the graying of America, such a shift in the demographics becomes all the more acceptable rather than considered strange or "not normal".

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue May 31, 2005 10:24 pm

Perhaps not the stigma it once held-- But we haven't come as far as we would like to think.

As far as the Internet and AIDS.. The opposite seems true. Many people are using the Internet to seek anonymous sexual partners, thus exposing more and more people to STD's and AIDS.

http://aids.about.com/cs/prevention/a/outreach.htm

But that is neither here nor there...

Victorian women were not assaulted day after day, hour after hour with ads and commercials depicting 20 year old women with perfect bodies. They may not have talked about their vaginas in the late 1800's- But neither did they have to feel that theirs was somehow substandard along with the rest of them since they didn't meet societies expectations of them.

When was the last time you saw a commercial that said... "Papa's got the magic of Clorox Bleach" ??

The main difference these days is women can have careers if they want them... and take care of the home as well--- since most families need 2 incomes and a hot meal at 7pm as well.

And the government still tries to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodies..... The Church too.. and the two can not combine--So we get it from two directions.

Women's Lib? Where?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue May 31, 2005 11:12 pm

I've never married and I am an oddity in my family-oriented neighborhood. I have teenaged friends and the guys ask me if I'm a lesbian! The girls never ask anything like that.

Other than that, when I run into people I used to ride the school bus with, they think it's something unique and they pause and I see them trying to untangle their lives from their families and try to envision life without them. I don't know what conclusion they draw. I just watch their faces.
The people who are on a second marriage and second family are the ones who seem to sigh and look more longingly at my single staus.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Tue May 31, 2005 11:14 pm

Oh well don't worry

You don't need a man, there just a waste of time.
And your better than that

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:07 pm

I think that Abby and Andrew were close. I do not believe that Andrew married Abby simply to have a housekeeper and a mother for his children. I think there was probably some real affection there. But what I wonder about is why did Lizzie seem to dominate that household as she did? Andrew let Lizzie take the grand tour of Europe; would he have afforded Emma that same luxury? He allowed Lizzie to choose the color of the house paint. This task was not delegated to the oldest daughter Emma, or even his wife who was the rightful mistress of the household, but to Lizzie. He wore Lizzie's class ring on his little finger from the day she gave it to him, until the day it was removed from his finger after his death. This symbolizes something to me about the relationship between Andrew and Lizzie. He also wore his wedding ring, a symbol of his commitment to Abby, but the two rings seemed to be of equal importance to him. Emma was sent away to school as a teenager. Why did he not send Lizzie away for schooling? There seems to be some dynamic at work there I can't quite put my finger on, but when it came to ruling the roost, my gut tells me Lizzie was THE boss in that house. Even Andrew seemed to do some uncharacteristic cow towing to her, such as giving her a half house to appease her. Why did he do this? He was perfectly with in his rights to give Abby that half house as he saw fit. I just can't fathom why Lizzie seemed to be the dominant figure in that house.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:31 pm

Wasn't Andrew buried with that ring on?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:39 pm

Audrey @ Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:31 pm wrote:Wasn't Andrew buried with that ring on?

Yes, you're quite right he was. Temporary lapse of some sort, since this is even one of the questions on my quiz about Lizzie and the murders

. But any ideas as to why Lizzie was allowed to rule the house?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:42 pm

I think it might have been a case of it being easier to give in than to fight....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:36 pm

In my experience, Virgos are not givers-in. A Virgo is going to think what they think and are rarely influenced by anyone, spouse or child. They just aren't that concerned with what others think. They also are not naturally demonstrably affectionate.
(Andrew was the Virgo).
And as the patriarch and the social times gave him full sway over these women in his house, I think there's something we're not getting here yet about him.
Men back then thought differently than they do now, that's for sure!

I've heard of Lizzie's ring he wore but I haven't heard he wore a wedding ring- can someone tell me the source of that info?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:39 am

Both Lizzie's parents were Virgos so maybe its in her blood too.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:29 am

You mean Sarah Morse born Sept. 19, 1823?
Well, she may have influenced Emma to a larger degree than Lizzie, as Lizzie only knew her mother for what, 2 years, 8 months?
Sarah died March 26, 1863.
The girls wouldn't exactly get it in their "blood." But I think I get what you mean.
Emma, being older, was acted upon by 2 Virgos until the age of around 12. That might have left Emma emotinally bankrupt. I'm surprised she wasn't the little kleptomaniac!

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:56 am

Yes Kat you got exactlyu what I meant

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:11 pm

Kat @ Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:36 pm wrote:
I've heard of Lizzie's ring he wore but I haven't heard he wore a wedding ring- can someone tell me the source of that info?

Well I have been looking through the testimony trying to find out what gave me this idea. I haven't found anything as of yet, because I haven't really gotten to far into it. I'm just doing a hit and miss type thing with picking certain individuals testimony to study because I have homework I'm working on right now as well. So far I have only found testimony that might have gotten mixed up in my mind somehow as the ring being a wedding ring.

Trial testimony of Dr. Willaim A. Dolan page 865:

Q. Did you find any other articles of jewelry?
A. He had a ring on his left hand, --- I am not quite positive as to
that.

Q. What kind of ring, apparently?
A. I forget, really.

Q. Do you remember whether it was silver or gold?
A. Gold, if I remember correctly.

Maybe this somehow got filed away as being a wedding ring with it mentioning a ring being on his left hand. Though Dr. Dolan doesn't actually state what kind of ring it is, I'm assuming this is Lizzie's class ring after reading it? I am going to read some testimony to follow it up later tonight.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:00 pm

Thanks for bringing up the ring, Kat. I was about to ask the same thing. Of course, it figured highly into "A Private Disgrace," but what was Lincoln's source? Indeed, was the ring story even in print before her book?
And, you're also right on the nose with your description of the Virgo sun sign. I've known many myself. The only word I'll add to your description is "inflexible." Being a more than perfect Capricorn myself, I can certainly afford to point out the imperfections in others.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:44 pm

Thanks for looking, Allen. Maybe the undertaker knows something about a ring? And Emma?

I was thinking I bet that was pretty stormy around Sarah and Andrew, now that we realize these were 2 Virgos. They could be very caught up in some sort of twisted dance with each other and end up ignoring Emma altogether!
I'd also think that Sarah liked to spend money and as the eldest of the Morse children I bet she was saucy and strong and used to getting her way!

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:22 pm

I've never heard of Sarah being that way and If Emma was ignored why would she love her mother so much to refuse another woman in her place?
And keep promises to her.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:35 pm

Well, we're talking about an informal look at astrological traits I've noted in Virgos.
Virgos like to run up the credit card. At least Virgo females do. I know of one Virgo male who sure did!
If they had e-bay back then, Andrew and Sarah I think would be broke!

Being the eldest also has some triats which go with it. And a bossy Sarah would go along with being the eldest of 12 or 13 children, don't you think?

If Virgos are really wrapped up in themselves, and Sarah was so young and somewhat glamorous (as she looks in her early photo) her daughter Emma could fall in love with her and no amount of ignoring Emma would drive her away from such a person. Actually, the possibility of neglect would make Emma try to love Sarah all the harder to be noticed.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:56 am

Yes Kat your right.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:18 am

I appreciate the understanding. I'd like to say that tho I know we have members who do not believe in astrology, I would ask that they make their own judgements on what I have put forth, based on their own experience and knowledge of people they know who are like that- and maybe give in a tiny bit to the common sense behind some of it as I have witnessed and pondered human nature for a good many years and have taken a bit of birthday info into account as I've assessed behaviours...
I call them my "informal polls," and I have honed my understanding and hopefully my grasp of how certain signs act or react in general, over my lifetime.

It ain't necessarily so, tho...If it sounds impossible to apply this to people of yesteryear...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:54 am

I'm a Scorpio, and I would say I act nothing like my sign is "supposed" to act. I've read a few of the books on how the people of not only my sign, but being my sign and my sex, are supposed to behave. Two of them being Linda Goodmans Sun Signs, and her book Love Signs. I've also looked it up online more than once or twice. I'm somewhat interested in the occult and things of that nature, and this goes along with that interest in my opinion. I enjoy ghost stories, reading about paranormal psychology, have studied the wiccan religion as a hobby, and I own a deck of Tarot cards which I know how to use. As for what character traits we are supposed to possess I do not find myself identifying with very much of it. My husband has more of the traits of a Scorpio, and he's a Sagittarius.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:53 pm

I'm an Aries and am supposed to be outgoing but forget that I'm far from.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:10 pm

Well, Scorpio is very close to Sagitarius so in my opinion, seasons can *bleed* over into the next sign.

I would say about Scorpio that they are pretty private individuals. They don't broadcast their business. They will appear in public and have a certain charisma, and strength to draw people in, but they don't really want to attract people. They like their privacy too much. They also have got a sometimes subtle sense of humor- much more so than most people- almost like an intellectual sense of humor that not many people *get.* They do like to know that their selected friends *get* them and their sense of humor. I think that makes them relax, knowing they are understood though they didn't have to put out a lot of effort to be understood.
What do you think?

I will add here, that Linda Goodman talks about a Scorpio's eyes. I think she mentions something about they need to wear shades, because their eyes are so penetrating, they can shock people, or be disconcerting.
Intense eyes, I remember from her.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:36 am

I've been told that the descriptions of the Scorpio Sign fit me to a tee, or like a glove. I don't see it. Maybe I'm not supposed to? I don't know, but I have never really put much into it. Are these the reference's in Linda Goodman's book that you were thinking of Kat?

Linda Goodman's Sun Signs page 278:

Look at the eyes. They can be green, blue, brown, or black, but they'll be piercing with hypnotic intensity.Most people feel nervous and ill at ease under Scorpio's steady gaze. You'll have to break the spell and look away first. He'll outstare you every time. It's a foolproof identification of the Pluto personality. Scorpio eyes bore deeply into you, mercilessly, as if they're penetrating your very soul. They are.

Page 280:

Be on guard with Scorpios. I don't mean they are wicked. They're just not soft or naive. Some Scorpios, realizing that their eyes expose their inner intensity, wear sun glasses frequently, even at night.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:52 am

My dad is a Scorpio and he has that quality so maybe were on to something.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:34 am

Allen and any Scorpios, did you find any *you* in my personal analysis?
Surely no Scorpio is going to answer, being so private and all.

I will say that Johnny Carson was a Scorpio and we met him. And he was very charismatic - you're just drawn to him. But he didn't like it. It made people feel they knew him to see him on TV in their homes every night, but only his very close friends ever got that about him, and how private the man was. I'm sure you are familiar with that aspect of the man. You Scorpios are probably shuddering right now thinking of the private life Johnny tried to live off-screen...

Yes, Allen that's what I recall about the eyes.
And maybe you are right in that people don't understand their own sign...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:34 am

I am a Capricorn.

I find some of the traits-- But I sometimes wonder if they are in everyone to a degree!

I find myself exceedingly different from my neighbors... I think it is more to do with the culture one is raised in.

Most of my closets friends have been Scorpios....

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:41 pm

Audrey @ Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:34 am wrote:I am a Capricorn.

I find some of the traits-- But I sometimes wonder if they are in everyone to a degree!

I find myself exceedingly different from my neighbors... I think it is more to do with the culture one is raised in.

Most of my closets friends have been Scorpios....

I would have to admit that when it comes to the privacy aspect, yes that is very true about me. My sister is a Scorpio, and so are my father and my step son. I see a few of those traits in them. Audrey you are the very first Capricorn I have ever known. That seems odd since I'm 31 years old, but it's true. It's an interesting sign to read about.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:46 pm

I am an Aquarius. Here's something (in part) I found about "us"...

They have a breadth of vision that brings diverse factors into a whole, and can see both sides of an argument without shilly-shallying as to which side to take. Consequently they are unprejudiced and tolerant of other points of view. This is because they can see the validity of the argument, even if they do not accept it themselves. They obey the Quaker exhortation to "Be open to truth, from whatever source it comes," and are prepared to learn from everyone.

Maybe this is why I seem to like to say: "Yes, BUT..." ???

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:55 pm

Capricorn:

Practical and prudent (Practical, maybe-- Prudent? NEVER!

Ambitious and disciplined (OK)

Patient and careful (I am the very definition if impatient and careless!)

Humorous and reserved (Reserved? ME?)

Pessimistic and fatalistic (I would like to think not!)

Miserly and grudging (Thayne would like the first part-- But, No. I think of grudging as a bit selfish and greedy and I certainly hope not!)

Over conventional and rigid (Now this one just amuses me. Over conventional? MOI????)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:43 pm

Oh golly! That's a terrible summing up of Capricorn!
It's so bad, in fact, forget it!

Some people attract a certain sign and you'll find yourself surrounded, eventually.
One sign which always surrounds me is Cancer. The other is Capricorn.
I know Capricorns better than just about any other sign, yet we are opposites as to time of year of birth.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:15 pm

Give me a good summing up!

Please!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:58 am

I'm not going to read again that thing you posted as to Capricorn. So I am winging it.

Capricorn's like to drive fast. They like cars and motorcycles almost like they are accessories. Most I've known have owned many many vehicles- 9 or more.

They have a very good innate sense of music as art. They "get" music, almost more than anyone. And like a wide variety.

They are practical and like to think they are detail-oriented- -but I think they get distracted just to the point where they tend to miss something, or leave something out. I think they know they tend to do this and so try to take extra care...meaning in the long run, no damage done. I think more sleep might help this tendency which frustrates them.

They are very generous. I think they like money only for it's ability to make things nice around them- if it's giving presents or cheering up a room by changing the furniture. I really think they like giving presents. I don't know why. It's not to buy affection. It's to show someone they are thinking about them. (Does this make sense?)

They get carried away on certain things which interest them. But they don't necessarily keep with it. Meaning they like to try new things but even tho they find something they like, they only really go thru a phase with it- they won't commit to just one thing always- whether it's a macrobiotic diet or a gym membership. They grow out of it after a while. I think they are pretty spiritual, in that they understand the spiritual aspect of things without needing to go to church. Like they live their spiritual ideals and so don't find the need to practice it openly in a church setting.
They really like and need to have a good time, now and then.
You know, let loose, dance, be loud a bit.
It's my understanding that the part of the body which can be most affected as they age are the knees and the feet.