Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

IDK, wouldn't we consider it a type of rape now in 2020 if a woman manipulated a man into impregnating her against his wishes?

Trapping a man with a pregnancy is NOT the same as rape. He wasn’t forced to have sex. And, in 2020, men can opt for a condom.

The scene was just yet another ridiculous piece of the weak, unbelievable story. It was less disturbing than the pulling out scenes.

She deliberately gets him drunk in order to "take advantage" of him and, iirc, he even tells her during the act that he doesn't want to come in her and she refuses to let him pull out.

If a man did that to a woman, it would be rape.

Men do that to women all the time in reverse.

"I'll pull out."

...

"Oops."

I am annoyed by the chorus of voices that keep insisting that what Daphne does to Simon is rape, and that this is shocking. The nineteenth century had child marriage, slavery, prostitution, poorhouses, forced conscription, indentured servitude, colonial exploitation, etc. To clutch your pearls about a sex scene where a woman climbs on top seems absurd. Any person FROM 1813 would laugh at your ideas about consent.

I do have a little more trouble suspending belief about the depth of Daphne's ignorance, however. This is a pre-Victorian era, and I don't think a particularly prudish one. It strikes me as odd that a culture so obsessed with breeding wouldn't discuss the fundamentals, or would be embarrassed by them.

Regarding Daphne's looks: she looks exactly like a painting of the Regency ideal of beauty. The other characters mostly don't. I don't think she looks childlike at all.--she looks like that girl on the cover of a Jane Austen novel, which, I suspect, is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

IDK, wouldn't we consider it a type of rape now in 2020 if a woman manipulated a man into impregnating her against his wishes?

Trapping a man with a pregnancy is NOT the same as rape. He wasn’t forced to have sex. And, in 2020, men can opt for a condom.

The scene was just yet another ridiculous piece of the weak, unbelievable story. It was less disturbing than the pulling out scenes.

She deliberately gets him drunk in order to "take advantage" of him and, iirc, he even tells her during the act that he doesn't want to come in her and she refuses to let him pull out.

If a man did that to a woman, it would be rape.

Men do that to women all the time in reverse.

"I'll pull out."

...

"Oops."

I am annoyed by the chorus of voices that keep insisting that what Daphne does to Simon is rape, and that this is shocking. The nineteenth century had child marriage, slavery, prostitution, poorhouses, forced conscription, indentured servitude, colonial exploitation, etc. To clutch your pearls about a sex scene where a woman climbs on top seems absurd. Any person FROM 1813 would laugh at your ideas about consent.

I do have a little more trouble suspending belief about the depth of Daphne's ignorance, however. This is a pre-Victorian era, and I don't think a particularly prudish one. It strikes me as odd that a culture so obsessed with breeding wouldn't discuss the fundamentals, or would be embarrassed by them.

Regarding Daphne's looks: she looks exactly like a painting of the Regency ideal of beauty. The other characters mostly don't. I don't think she looks childlike at all.--she looks like that girl on the cover of a Jane Austen novel, which, I suspect, is the point.

Yes!! Putting current values and morals on something placed in the 1800's doesn't work.

I see no outrage that women were property. That they could be "ruined" simply be being with a male unsupervised, and forced into marriage. No problem with the arrangement to have Daphne marry an ugly old man because he was a suitable match.

A woman raping a man in the 1800s? No way.

[Anonymous]

Yes, exactly!

[Anonymous]

Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved it. Sorry haters. The Duke was the only good thing about winter break 2020 and I also loved all the period costumes and dancing.

same!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

IDK, wouldn't we consider it a type of rape now in 2020 if a woman manipulated a man into impregnating her against his wishes?

Trapping a man with a pregnancy is NOT the same as rape. He wasn’t forced to have sex. And, in 2020, men can opt for a condom.

The scene was just yet another ridiculous piece of the weak, unbelievable story. It was less disturbing than the pulling out scenes.

She deliberately gets him drunk in order to "take advantage" of him and, iirc, he even tells her during the act that he doesn't want to come in her and she refuses to let him pull out.

If a man did that to a woman, it would be rape.

I’m late to this thread but also late to this show - just started watching this past weekend. I find this scene unbelievable and it sort of filled the storyline for me. Simon could have easily - easily - pulled out by either turning over or simply lifting up what looks to be a 90 lbs woman. This wasn’t rocket science. Instead we’re supposed to believe he was trapped like a turtle on his back, while he flails for her to stop. It wasn’t believable and while the entire storyline is intended to be regency romance and fanciful, this fell flat. It’s been hard to, er, get back into the show ever since.

[Anonymous]

The change in this scene is Shonda's attempt to lighten what happened in the book. In the book, Simon is drunk and has really no idea what is going on. Daphne is completely aware of this and even internally monologues about why it's ok to take advantage of him. In the book, Daphne is innocent but MUCH sharper than she's portrayed in the show.

[Anonymous]

The Duke is about to be on NPR All Things Considered!

[Anonymous]

I'm completely enthralled by the series, but acknowledge that the attempt to soften the non-consent scene from book to screen was a miss. Especially since Daphne's culpability was dealt with less in the show than in the book. That said, I loved this series so much. I loved Simon-Daphne's love story, especially these scenes:

- The touching yourself talk
- Simon's love speech appeal to the Queen
- The burn for you dialogue, especially Simon's morning, evening, night part
- Daphne's love speech in the rain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

I’m a PP who called it trashy. I’m a fan of trashy Real Housewives shows, so I know all about trash. I had high hopes that maybe this would be somewhat Jane Austen-ish, but I couldn’t have been further from the mark. The writing is horrible and the sets are so Disney-like as to be cringeworthy. Even my 16 year old daughter was disgusted and disappointed.

Man I just do not understand how somebody could like real housewives but say they were disgusted by Bridgerton.

Also wasn’t it awkward watching those sex scenes with your 16-year old daughter??? Mine is only 11 so I’m not sure how I will feel in five years but I just can’t imagine.

PP here. I guess because RH is unapologetically trashy - it’s not trying to be anything it’s not. Bridgerton was very much pretending to be an elegant, (semi) historical romance, when in reality, it was just a Disney-ish vehicle for poor writing and gratuitous sex scenes. Which we didn’t know about, btw, until we watched it. My daughter is fine with tasteful sex scenes, but this was way over the top - for both of us. We only watched the first episode before crying uncle.

Are you the poster in the Hilaria thread who apparently was all hot to trot on Amy Schumer's cooking show thinking she was funny and and apparently didn't have even a passing exposure to her comedy? Shocked to learn that she can be crass? You need to vet your entertainment better. Especially if you're planning on watching a bunch of sex scenes with your kids. Do better.

Uh, nope. No I am not. But you certainly sound like you could use an anger management class. Do better, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

IDK, wouldn't we consider it a type of rape now in 2020 if a woman manipulated a man into impregnating her against his wishes?

Trapping a man with a pregnancy is NOT the same as rape. He wasn’t forced to have sex. And, in 2020, men can opt for a condom.

The scene was just yet another ridiculous piece of the weak, unbelievable story. It was less disturbing than the pulling out scenes.

She deliberately gets him drunk in order to "take advantage" of him and, iirc, he even tells her during the act that he doesn't want to come in her and she refuses to let him pull out.

If a man did that to a woman, it would be rape.

Men do that to women all the time in reverse.

"I'll pull out."

...

"Oops."

I am annoyed by the chorus of voices that keep insisting that what Daphne does to Simon is rape, and that this is shocking. The nineteenth century had child marriage, slavery, prostitution, poorhouses, forced conscription, indentured servitude, colonial exploitation, etc. To clutch your pearls about a sex scene where a woman climbs on top seems absurd. Any person FROM 1813 would laugh at your ideas about consent.

I do have a little more trouble suspending belief about the depth of Daphne's ignorance, however. This is a pre-Victorian era, and I don't think a particularly prudish one. It strikes me as odd that a culture so obsessed with breeding wouldn't discuss the fundamentals, or would be embarrassed by them.

Regarding Daphne's looks: she looks exactly like a painting of the Regency ideal of beauty. The other characters mostly don't. I don't think she looks childlike at all.--she looks like that girl on the cover of a Jane Austen novel, which, I suspect, is the point.

Totally agree with your entire post. The “rape” debate is one of the most absurd I’ve read on DCUM. In no way, whatsoever, was that rape. Ludicrous people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

[Anonymous]

Another point about Daphne and Simon and the infamous scene - at this point in history, marriage was very much a “contract.” Children were expected. Simon did indeed misrepresent himself when he told Daphne he “couldn’t” have children. When she finally figured out that he simply *wasn’t* going to have children, she realized that it was his DUTY to do so, and that as his wife, she deserved children. In that context, I found it perfectly understandable that she did what she did. Of course, nowadays, that’s considered tricking/trapping the man, etc. But at the time, she was fully entitled to children by her husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

How do you watch shows like The Tudors or The Spanish Princess? All the things you object to there as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, another point that may not have been made (I didn't read the entire thread) Queen Charlotte had some African ancestry. At least according to some historians. Thus the running with this idea has its context--it isn't coming from thin air.

This is the part that got me. If they decided to make Queen Charlotte black, then they’re going with that theory, that she had some African heritage. They also made her husband, King George, go mad - which is also historically accurate. I couldn’t reconcile some parts of this show being fairly accurate with most of the show being completely fabricated fluff. I mean, it was fun to watch, but I would have preferred some consistency. Either be historically accurate throughout, or be completely fictionalized and fantastical.

Also, the sex was WAY too much. I know many of you enjoyed it, but the amount and explicitness was a major turn off for me.

It’s an adaptation of a romance novel. I would be disappointed if it wasn’t at least as raunchy as GoT.