After the double take/uneasy giggle at the choice of word to describe women (in the 1920s), I looked at the article. One main difference that stands out for me

After the double take/uneasy giggle at the choice of word to describe women (in the 1920s), I looked at the article. One main difference that stands out for me is that the type of behaviour patterns described by the OP above (booze, grind, etc.) would be classed as "typical" from today's point of view, the "flapper" behaviour pattern above wouldn't have been "typical" in that usual sense of the word in those times (would it probably be tame from today's stand point?). Anecdotally, it would have been, at best fringe, and dare I say, restricted to (perhaps) the wealthy. Someone also mentioned roman orgies. That would have been restricted to the wealthy, upper class too and would not have been classed as "typical"? Therefore, the OP's point, namely, " the way we enjoy or practice most of these would be alien to people of 100 years ago. It's not the concepts that change but their expression." is relevant IMO. And usually that is where clash of the generations originate from?