Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Just randomly curious.. Was Mr Darcy a virgin?
Hilarious, but I think high principles and moral values are what endear us so much to that era, well for me anyway! Darcy is all those things and more :)
Chahrazad wrote: "I join you girls :)I think that this discussion brought forth how highly we think of Darcy, or how generations of readers have come to idealize/ideolize him. I don't think we can ever prove he wa..."
Agree.
I agree with some people. Yes it was common for men to have sex before marriage but Mr Darcy was obviously different. I just can't imagine him doing that, his personality was just too classy to do that.
I agree Saphireheart. He was different. He wasn't a typical member of the ton.
I am inclined to disagree. I think you are all a bit biased because you want to keep him on a pedestal. I understand why you keep it that way but still disagree. :)Anyway, we will never know because the only person who knows cannot tell us. I wonder if Jane Austen would be inclined to answer this sort of questions. :D
Chahrazad wrote: "Rachel wrote: "Chahrazad wrote: "Someone at last dared to ask THE question :DI think pre-marital sex was pretty much a taboo in this era, however that didn't stop men and women from the experienc..."
Yes! I agree! An ordeal for him in more ways than one.
I agree wholeheartedly with Louise. Darcy is a man of his time. Remember his father died AFTER he graduated from university. You don't think he was a bit more free and youthful before then? I don't think he would dally with housemaids or dairy maids or hire an opera dancer. He would be discriminating and discreet. He lives in London most of the year so I'm sure he would be aware of the high class establishments. The difference between Darcy and Wickham is that Wickham is indiscriminate and indiscreet. He's a libertine - willing to take advantage of any opportunity. So what if Lydia becomes a camp follower? What does he care? Whereas Darcy cares because he knows Lydia has ruined her family's reputation and her sisters will never find husbands. Mr. Collins ewww ick ... He did go to university so I can imagine him having an awkward encounter with a tavern wench or someone of that sort and probably it was pretty awful. Unless he took a vow of chastity. One can only hope. Poor Charlotte!
Jane Austen wasn't the demure country spinster her nephews made her out to be. See the Crawford siblings as a good example. Some people argue Henry Crawford is the hero of the book and some say Mary is the heroine. Jane Austen did know about homosexuality. Her brothers were in the Navy and that sort of thing was illegal and punishable by death if caught but it happened. There's comment by Mary Crawford in Mansfield Park where she talks about living among Navy men and she says "Of Rears and Vices I have seen many." Jane's brother Frank maintained that was a double entendre about homosexuality. There's also speculation by some scholars that Tom Bertram was gay.
I highly recommend The Real Jane Austen A Life in Small Things. It contains a lot of interesting information.
I'd would have to agree with you, Rachel. I just don't see Mr. Darcy putting up with "company" that could in anyway tarnish his or his sister's reputations. Everything Darcy does is for the ones he loves....Plus, somehow the idea of Darcy sleeping with anyone other than Lizzy feels like like he's jilting me, the reader! (Hmm... might be spending one too many nights at home, curled up with an impossibly perfect fictional man and not enough with with my real man! Lol)
You all keep pointing out that Darcy is a fictional character, but you don't seem to take it into account in your arguments. Maybe we have unrealistic expectations of Darcy precisely because he is an unrealistic character. I'm not saying that Austen was a bad character writer; I think she's fantastic. So, isn't the point that Darcy was written as the "ideal man?" And, as the ideal man of the times, he would be handsome, rich, proud (since "pride where there is a real superiority of mind" is always good), protective of those he loves, and yes, a virgin.
Something Just popped into my head. Rich and Noble man than had mistresses, because going to brothel was just too low for them and they all had a mistress tucked away somewhere.I have changed my mind Mr Darcy probably had a mistress. therefore he was not a virgin, harsh reality.
Lol! You know, I would rather think Darcy was NOT a virgin. I dunno, I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but thinking of Darcy being a virgin makes him look like Mr. Collins- you all know what I mean. Virgin Darcy? NO! And it's OK Austenites! I think we can choose how we want to imagine Mr. Darcy to be; as for me, Eliza is not Mr. Darcy's first. Imagination can take you everywhere!
Hannah wrote: "You all keep pointing out that Darcy is a fictional character, but you don't seem to take it into account in your arguments. Maybe we have unrealistic expectations of Darcy precisely because he is ..."Sound argument, I endorse it :)
Polina (Polinushka) wrote: "Lol! You know, I would rather think Darcy was NOT a virgin. I dunno, I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but thinking of Darcy being a virgin makes him look like Mr. Collins- you all know what I ..."Yes we can think of Darcy how we want, but I think we have to remember too that Mr. Darcy is different from Mr. Collins, and would be, even regarding being virgin.
And you know, love really does conquers all - even virginity on the marriage night. :)
Mr Darcy is NOT like Mr Collins!!!! What a horrible thought!!!
Yes he was and don't you think otherwise!!! LOL he was the perfect man haha
Soph wrote: "Mr Darcy is NOT like Mr Collins!!!! What a horrible thought!!!"Grosssss that is a horrible thought LOL he gave me the creeps so bad LOL specially in the Keira Knightly movie LOL
LOL, Alexandra!I still love Mr. Darcy with all his impropriety; that is to say, he was NOT a virgin! Sorry, I just don't find "PERFECT" very appealing.
I like to think Mr. Darcy was virgin but I don't know. He was so shy and awkward around new people... I just can't imagine he wasn't virgin.And... what about Mr. Knightley?
Mr. Knightley is a Saint or at least a monk. I could see him having a very discreet liason with a quiet, intelligent widow some time in the past but I'll buy the argument that he's a virgin, Edmund Bertram and Edward Ferrars too, but not Darcy, Capt. Wentworth, Col Brandon or Henry Tilney.
Chahrazad wrote: "Sound argument, I endorse it :)"Thanks!
Alexandra wrote: "Grosssss that is a horrible thought LOL he gave me the creeps so bad LOL specially in the Keira Knightly movie LOL"The Mr. Collins from "Lost in Austen" is the worst! (shudder) Seriously disgusting.
I don't think I have read that! Is it a movie as well?? I need to check that out!! lol
wow that one sounds really interesting!! I will have to read all of her books before I try that one though since there might be spoilers!!
Lost in Austen is a TV mini series which mixes Pride&Prejudice and our time. It's quite fun. Except Mr. Collins. He really is disgusting.
So cool!! I will have to look that one up! I think someone told me about it a long time ago and it was on youtube I think. I will def look for it! LOL yikes I am interested to see what he is like!
Omg I watched that movie.. Mr Collin was disgustingew ew ew
but the movie is sooooo entertaining you should watch it!!
Hannah wrote: "You all keep pointing out that Darcy is a fictional character, but you don't seem to take it into account in your arguments. Maybe we have unrealistic expectations of Darcy precisely because he is ..."What Miss Austen did that so many authors were not able to do is make this fictional character timeless of sorts. That is why so many people love to rewrite their own stories with these characters as their base. However, I think because of that, a lot of the comments are not looking solely at Jane Austen's Fitzwilliam Darcy. He was not shy - though he was portrayed as such in one of the adaptations. He was hauty, prideful, prejudiced, a truly aristocratic attitude, and did not do what he did not wish to do. Being a quiet person does not equate to being shy.
Lost in Austen is fabulous! Most of my JA friends don't like it, but we loved it! You have to watch it with the knowledge that it is a spoof though.
Also someone said something about Collins and Charlotte and that they hoped it never happened - in the book though they announce that she is to have a baby, so the reality is...
Absolutely agree with you Sarah. Darcy is not shy. Reserved is not the same as shy though one can be shy and reserved. Reserved means he's not open like Bingley. He doesn't easily mingle with people who aren't in his social circle. He's been brought up to think himself above just about everyone else but that doesn't mean he's never associated with women. Lost in Austen made me laugh like nothing else! Mr. Collins is soooo gross and disgusting. He's seriously the worst Mr. Collins. Thank goodness for vows of celibacy, at least temporary ones. Anyone who hasn't seen it be sure to watch the original on YouTube. The U.S. version on DVD is missing a few scenes.
Qnpoohbear wrote: "Anyone who hasn't seen it be sure to watch the original on YouTube. The U.S. version on DVD is missing a few scenes. "Yes - that scene at the piano is worth seeing the Brit. version!! I am chuckling just remembering it. Hubby and I need to watch LIA again soon.
Sarah wrote: "What Miss Austen did that so many authors were not able to do is make this fictional character timeless of sorts. That is why so many people love to rewrite their own stories with these characters as their base. However, I think because of that, a lot of the comments are not looking solely at Jane Austen's Fitzwilliam Darcy."Good point; I can agree with that. I liked Lost in Austen a lot, but Mr. Collins creeped me out so much, I could only do it twice and I was done. Not sure I'll ever be able to watch it again; just...nasty.
One quote that had me thinking that Darcy might be a virgin is from Mrs. Renyolds when she says Darcy isn't like other young men always running around. (I don't have the book in front of me so I don't know the excate quote.
The ideal of being a virgin on the wedding night only applied to women, Darcy would not have been considered perfect for not taking a mistress.I don't think Mrs Reynolds can be considered a reliable witness, she's the last person he would discuss that with (except Georgiana).
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see why experience with women would make Darcy more or less perfect? It doesn't have any effect on the image I have of him, outside of my conviction of anything he does being done in an honourable manner.
I liked Lost in Austen, it was funny, I just wish they could have done better by Charlotte.
Louise wrote: "I liked Lost in Austen, it was funny, I just wish they could have done better by Charlotte. "Yes, that was a bit disappointing for her.
Louise wrote: "I liked Lost in Austen, it was funny, I just wish they could have done better by Charlotte. "Yes, that was a bit disappointing for her.
Given the type of man Darcy is, I think virgin.
Even though she was a gentlewoman, I think that Austen would have been aware of sex, albeit not detailed - lolA rich man of Darcy's position would have had quite a few sexual partners. As for Darcy - I'd like to think that he was a virgin and/or had less experience with sex, due to his somewhat shy reserved nature.
Vicki wrote: "Tamara wrote: "oh what a thread I do not think he was a virgin but I would not put money on it lol! A friend of mine watched a documentary about sex being a taboo subject in the past and it talked ..."Yes. Although Austen doesn't explicit say it when they talk about her living with him it is implied.
Chahrazad wrote: "The idea of Darcy not being a virgin doesn’t bother me (in terms of a business transaction or an older married woman etc,) but the one thing I will not believe is his free use of the housemaids… that sort of thing went on, but I can’t see Darcy condoning it. I mention it because I know there have been mention in fanfic books and it rankled. ."I'm in your camp. I believe that Darcy probably used the services of a professional in order to educate himself and perhaps to stem temptation. However, I would think that if he did use maids for that purpose his Housemaid would have known and the town would have known and perhaps he would not have been thought of so highly.
I think good Gentlemen would not do that to their maids. Not that it wouldn't happen. I imagine that living under the same roof an attachment on both sides could easily develop. However, gentlemen with moral or scruples would probably use a professional service of some sort.
Here is an interesting article about the Sexual Revolution of the 1760's (Jane Austen's time). http://fivebooks.com/interviews/faram...
My guess is that he had a few nice affairs with the Oxford equivalent of Haymarket ware when he was up at college. A well-heeled, shy, ardent boy who loves poetry? The prostitutes would have found him charming.
Abigail wrote: ". A well-heeled, shy, ardent boy who loves poetry? The prostitutes would have found ..."Oh, I'm sure they would have. I wouldn't be surprised if Fathers would have taken their own children at certain age to advance their "education" in sex.
It is very common in South America and an approved practice even if it isn't talked about openly. These are highly Catholic centric cultures and the virginity of women is highly prized while male sexuality is also highly praised.
Susan wrote: "Regarding Darcy's virtue I think Austen despised hypocracy, she ridiculed it constantly. If Darcy were guilty like Wickham of using women for his own pleasure I think his veiw of Wickham, which inc..."I am not sure why you think Darcy not being a virgin would amount to hypocrisy on his part. Remember the Regency is NOT Victorian times, standards were different. So long as he did no harm to anyone (did not ruin people's reputations like Wickham did, for example), I see no reason to think that his having sex with a professional would be hypocritical or dishonourable. And high standards can mean that he had a high standard mistress. He is close to thirty, I mean, seriously, come on.
As to double standards and deceit... I am not sure what you mean. Deceit to whom? Has he ever claimed to be a virgin? If so, I must have missed it. He thinks Wickham a cad because he disregards other people's lives for his own pleasure and convenience. This has nothing to do with Darcy having a woman established somewhere with mutual agreement to the conditions of their relationship.
I frankly don't think it matters much whether he was or was not a virgin. What matters is that we know he is honourable and caring, and that therefore he would have been careful and respectful towards the person he was with in the past, and would be faithful and loving towards his wife. That being said, if we are discussing him as though he were a real person, it seems to me a high piece of wishful thinking to suppose that he had not had some experiences. At the same time I don't know why some of you wish a 28 year old virgin upon poor Lizzy.
Susan wrote: "Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "Regarding Darcy's virtue I think Austen despised hypocracy, she ridiculed it constantly. If Darcy were guilty like Wickham of using women for his own pleasure I think hi..."I am sorry if my comment sounded as though I thought virginity was a bad thing (it's neither good nor bad, neither is the lack of it), I merely meant that some comments here on this thread sounded as though people would have preferred a virgin Darcy as though that were better than if he had some experiences.
But pox-ridden? That's another extreme, surely. He could have easily had a girl on the side who had not had anybody else's germs to pass on to him. But you are right, it would be by far better if he were a virgin than if he were pox ridden (or if he had a dozen children on the side).
I still disagree about the hypocrisy and deceit thought - mutual arrangement where the terms are agreed and the girl entirely consents and benefits from it, is not at all the same as plucking a girl away from her family (a family one is befriended with no less), ruining the whole lot of them in the process, with no intention of marrying her or paying her, or even being honest about your intentions towards her. If Darcy were a real person, and had had a past and it had involved a mistress that would not at all be the same as what Wickham had done to either Georgiana or Lydia. Therefore, he was not being hypocritical. As to disrespect - perhaps you have a point there, it's hard to say with the historical times we are speaking of. The whole society took advantage of women, so the prevalence of mistresses and prostitutes etc was obviously a by product of that and therefore any man indulging in their services could be said to be taking advantage of the vulnerable social position of those people, therefore disrespecting them. But I don't think men thought of that in that way at the time. If he had had a mistress, I don't think he would have treated her badly, or been ungenerous to her, and was himself educated and handsome. One might argue that such a woman would have been pleased to have a man like him for a partner or client or whatever.
Susan wrote: "Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "Regarding Darcy's virtue I think Austen despised hypocracy, she ridiculed it constantly. If Darcy were guilty like Wickham of using women for his own pleasure I think hi..."I agree
We must agree to disagree on that point I am sorry :) I can definitely see what you are saying but a single man keeping a mistress is simply in no way as morally reprehensible as using and ruining a woman for your own pleasure. Even if Darcy thought the keeping of a mistress was distasteful there is no way In the world he would have thought it as bad as what Wickham did. To me that's like comparing having a spliff once in while at college and dealing in drugs. A world of difference whatever your stance on the matter of having a spliff or no - a high stickler in morals would disapprove of both of course but would judge (I think) one as an indulgence and the other as a serious trespass of what is right.
We must agree to disagree on that point I am sorry :) I can definitely see what you are saying but a single man keeping a mistress is simply in no way as morally reprehensible as using and ruining a woman for your own pleasure. Even if Darcy thought the keeping of a mistress was distasteful there is no way In the world he would have thought it as bad as what Wickham did. To me that's like comparing having a spliff once in while at college and dealing in drugs. A world of difference whatever your stance on the matter of having a spliff or no - a high stickler in morals would disapprove of both of course but would judge (I think) one as an indulgence and the other as a serious trespass of what is right.
Jane Austen
Books mentioned in this topic
The Real Jane Austen: A Life in Small Things (other topics)Bridget Jones's Diary and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (other topics)
Brandon and Knightly maybe, Wentworth... I somehow doubt it, he was still in love with Anne but he was bitter for a long time and then even assuming he was faithful to her he was a young sailor when he met her.
Bingley... I actually don't think so, I'm not saying he would have instigated it but I think it unlikely he'd turn a pretty (low born) girl down, if just not to offend her.