Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Just randomly curious.. Was Mr Darcy a virgin?
message 101:
by
Sarah
(new)
Dec 21, 2014 02:24PM
Jane Austen said of Darcy and Lizzy that they would not have a large brood of children, because Darcy did not want to use his wife selfishly (I'm paraphrasing) where said usage referred more to pregnancy and childbirth than to sexual intercourse. I think it's in her letters, maybe after her brother Edward's wife died after their eleventh child was born. I think Darcy's shyness and reserve would prevent him from having sex with a woman he didn't love, and this attitude regarding the possibility of a baby would doubly prevent him from having sex with a woman who wasn't his wife.
reply
|
flag
I agree Sarah. And with you Susan about the hypocrisy issue.
I agree Sarah. And with you Susan about the hypocrisy issue.
Susan wrote: "Speaking from personal experience, as a 29 year old virgin I married a 28 year old virgin. We are still together and in love almost 20 years later. I have no regrets and plenty of happy memories, including very touching and lovely recollections of our first weeks together. "Susan while I imagine these are your views based on your Faith. England in the Regency era (much like today) wasn't highly religious and male virginity wasn't seen the same way as female virginity. If Darcy was a clergyman I suspect he would have been a virgin (I suspect Edmond Bertram was) but he wasn't a Clergyman. I don't know if he was a virgin or not (only Austen really knows).
However to suggest that Darcy not being a Virgin would somehow taint him is wrong. He would have certainly not taken advantage of women but there were several Brothels in which men from Darcy's class were used to frequent. These establishments were not illegal and the women were under the protection of a Madam.
However, just like in Canada, Mexico or any part of the World today. This wasn't a topic which was talked about openly and you will probably not see in literature of today just as Austen would not have done so in the day. She also doesn't explain many things that were normal to her period or class (like barouche or table painting).
Edward, if you say this --"I don't know if he was a virgin or not (only Austen really knows)."
Then saying this --
"to suggest that Darcy not being a Virgin would somehow taint him is wrong"
-- is completely inaccurate, as you have no legitimate reasoning to back it up with.
Susan's opinion is her own, as are yours.
Robin wrote: "Edward, if you say this --"I don't know if he was a virgin or not (only Austen really knows)."
"to suggest that Darcy not being a Virgin would somehow taint him is wrong"
Robin - Not sure why one statement nullifies the other. What I am saying is I have no idea whether the fictional character of Darcy was a virgin or not (only Austen really knew). Regardless, saying that if he wasn't a Virgin would taint his character isn't accurate for the time or the novel not a matter of opinion.
Either way, I don't think his virginity or lack of is relevant to the novel in any way.
Her opinion on Darcy is not valid because it is made out of a different time and with different opinions. However, I wasn't opining on Darcy's character simply on how it would have been seen in his era.
There is a very clear distinction between our views and the views of that time. For example, Austen obviously considered slavery something that was wrong. However, for the time slavery was something that was seen as common and therefore a Gentleman (IE Mansfield Park Mr. Bertram) having slaves a was not seen as a moral ambiguity.
In fact, the hero and liberator of the U.S. (George Washington) was a slave owner and yet he was highly admired and highly respected as a Gentleman and became the First President.
Edward wrote: "Her opinion on Darcy is not valid"WHAT???!!!
Elizabeth wrote: "Edward wrote: "Her opinion on Darcy is not valid"WHAT???!!!" She is judging him with current moral views. That's what I mean. If this novel took place in present time or even in the last 50 years he views would be valid.
However, judging that Darcy would be a hypocrite is inaccurate because she is using present standards or views is not a valid way of opining about Darcy.
Valid - adjective
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
So it isn't Logical or reasonable to judge or have an opinion on Darcy (whether or not he was a virgin) using today's morals or standards. That's what I am saying.
I'm not trying to attack Susan in any way and she's free to have any opinion of Darcy she likes or any version of Darcy she likes (that's the point of reading stories I think).
Susan wrote: "Edward wrote: "Susan wrote: "Speaking from personal experience, as a 29 year old virgin I married a 28 year old virgin. We are still together and in love almost 20 years later. I have no regrets an..."Susan - You may be right that he was a Virgin. I personally do not know.
But you did say it would make him a hypocrite and that's what I meant by "taint". I do not believe in that time and in that society he would have been considered a hypocrite. My point is that he would not have been considered a hypocrite in his time. Also his views on women were of Nobel women, although I do not believe Mr. Darcy would have used any of the maids.
His moral high ground is based on what we know from his conversations with Elizabeth. Outside of what Elizabeth knows or she believes about him, we don't know anything.
This is really Elizabeth Bennet's story and it is her story about her First Impression of Darcy (the original title).
Everything we know about Darcy is either from a letter, something someone told Elizabeth (his maid, the townsfolk, his aunt, etc) or from conversations between Elizabeth and Darcy. We never see Darcy interact outside of Elizabeth Bennett's circle.
In fact, Darcy knows about Jane Bennet being in London and yet never tells his friend that the woman he loves is in London.
Which suggests Mr. Darcy is not all Peaches and Cream. Not a bad guy mind you and overall his manners were very commendable. He also only helps Lydia Bennett only because he is in love with Elizabeth (he didn't have to do anything really but not as high as moral ground since it is for his own purpose and not entirely altruistic).
Anyway, my point wasn't to talk about Brothels (which have always been due to poverty and abuse) but simply to point out that they existed and it wasn't something folks talked about (much like today in many countries). I agree with you that Brothels then and now are an environment which encourages all sorts of abuse against women.
Edward wrote: "So it isn't Logical or reasonable to judge or have an opinion on Darcy (whether or not he was a virgin) using today's morals or standards. That's what I am saying."But what you are saying is wrong Edward, because you are saying that people of the 21st century are different and have different morals and standards than the people of the late 18th-early 19th era. If that were true, then we in today's world would have no way to enjoy the story, because we would not understand the people in it.
But we are not different, we are the same. Some people in that earlier time period would judge Darcy as hypocritical if he had a mistress, the same as some in today's world -- and also those in both eras that wouldn't see anything wrong with Darcy's actions.
THAT is what we love about Austen's work - that her characters are the same as we see walking around today.
So, Susan's views are not just of the current mode, and her opinion is therefore logical, reasonable, and valid.
Elizabeth wrote: "But we are not different, we are the same. Some people in that earlier time period would judge Darcy as hypocritical if he had a mistress, the same as some in today's world -- and also those in both eras that wouldn't see anything wrong with Darcy's actions.."Elizabeth - I respect your opinion but we do not think the same or view the World in the same way as they did in Austen's time. We do not hold people by the same standards or values and we do not think in the same manner. I think I made the case with slavery.
However, this is demonstrated in another novel. Traveling 30 miles was not something someone did without some preparation (Mr. Knightly makes fun of Frank Churchill for going to London to cut his hair - 30 miles).
So while we are the same in the aspect that people want health, love and prosperity the views on how to get those or what those mean to us vs. what it mean to them is very different. Nobel women had to educate themselves on how to behave, dance, play an instrument, paint or draw, French or German, ride a horse, even archery , how to manage a household and if they were lucky basic math (arithmetic) along with some geography. This is how women of that time ensured their future because they would then be able to marry well (as long as they had a respectable family).
The reason we enjoy her novels is because Austen's novels surpass time because it revolves around relationships and it captures our imagination. It captures our desire for a more Romantic period but I do not believe any of us would give up our conveniences to actually live in that time.
So while it is perfectly valid to judge anyone based on your own opinion. It isn't a valid argument or opinion to say they would have been a hypocrite when judging him based on our views. That's my point, which I think I obviously failed miserably in trying to explain.
So again. Yes Susan is within her rights to see or have any opinion of Darcy. However, her judging Darcy with present standards and morals is not the same as the people from his time with their present standards and morals. So while we may see him as a hypocrite if he wasn't a virgin, I do not believe his contemporaries would have seen him or judged him that way.
No, Edward, people in both eras view standards the same. A lie is a lie, to them and to us. Saying one thing and acting another is still hypocrisy. You mention slavery, but there were those in Austen's England who thought of slavery on all sides of the spectrum: that it was right, that it was wrong, that 'who cares, let's make money from it'. Today, in American and English society the pendulum has swung to the idea that it is wrong.You notice also that Frank Churchill's father did not criticize his son for traveling 30 miles. Yes, modes of travel have changed over the years - but that is not a moral or value.
And while transportation methods and some ideas in society have changed, not all of them have. The same with morals and values. There are still people in this day and age who think slavery's not so bad, and those that practice hypocrisy. Also those who recognize it.
As to whether Darcy's contemporaries would have judged him to be hypocritical, yes I think some would -- the Dashwood ladies were aghast to discover Willoughby a libertine; Mr. Eliot at the end of Persuasion is looked down upon because he takes Mrs. Clay 'under his protection'; even Elizabeth realizes that her acquaintance with Darcy has never shown "anything that betrayed him to be unprincipled or unjust, anything that spoke him of irreligious or immoral habits" (p 212).
Again, my point is that because the views, morals and values of Austen's era are still alive and valid in ours, readers have a right to judge a character's presumed values with their own.
At the risk of inciting a riot, I have to agree with Edward here, I think a lot of the arguments have been based on personal bias. Personally I have no doubt that whatever dealings Darcy had with women were honourable, that is to say he treated them well and did nothing to lower them in the eyes of the world.
I do not see this as being the same as never having contracted a temporary alliance with a willing woman, and I don’t see it as being hypocritical when compared to Wickham’s actions.
It’s interesting that we’re comparing modern morals though, I assume we’re talking about western beliefs but from what I observe, things have changed to an extent that now not only would Darcy not be a virgin, we’d all be surprised if Lizzy was.
Louise Sparrow wrote: "At the risk of inciting a riot, I have to agree with Edward here, I think a lot of the arguments have been based on personal bias. Personally I have no doubt that whatever dealings Darcy had with..."
I don't think you'll cause any more riot than the rest of us are. :)
It’s interesting that we’re comparing modern morals though, I assume we’re talking about western beliefs but from what I observe, things have changed to an extent that now not only would Darcy not be a virgin, we’d all be surprised if Lizzy was.
Good point
Louise Sparrow wrote: "At the risk of inciting a riot, I have to agree with Edward here, I think a lot of the arguments have been based on personal bias. Louise - You eloquently and elegantly explained what I've failed to explain all along. Whether or not Darcy was a virgin is just pure speculation and honestly irrelevant to the story.
The fact that in the end Elizabeth Bennett finds no fault with Darcy (even though there are plenty of faults on both of them) and the fact that both characters grow and change their ways is the main point of her story.
The fact that we are considering Darcy's virginity says more about us than what it says about Austen's time or novels.
Emily wrote: "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. "I agree with you completely. Darcy lives in London most of the time, the largest metropolis in England. He can find just about any type of female he wants. There's a difference in the way one treated a female one considered marriageable and the way one treated a female was not eligible. He's not SHY or even reserved, he's a snob plain and simple. He was taught to think highly of himself "good principles in theory but not in practice." Until he meets Elizabeth and she tells it like it is, he's a snob. He just doesn't make the effort to get to know people outside of his social class. I can't see him having a woman in his keeping or approaching an opera dancer or actress. I can't see him with a courtesan. I can more easily see him going discreetly to a select establishment in Mayfair. I can easily see Darcy having a liaison with a willing widow of his own class. That isn't abusing a woman or at all the same thing that Wickham does. Wickham uses people for his own selfish pleasure without giving them anything in return. He sought out Georgiana for her fortune., He takes Lydia away from her family and ruins her reputation without a thought. Perhaps he assumed her disinterested father wouldn't care but most likely, he didn't think. That's Wickham's problem. He's selfish and doesn't think things through. He's lazy and wants immediate gratification without a care who he hurts in the process. Darcy is more thoughtful and careful and would never dream of being do dishonest and deceitful as Wickham as done.
No. That's not to suggest he slept around, visited houses of a certain repute but at 30 and in the Naughty Victorian, Edwardian etc. eras, they did have sex back then. And by 30, he's had to have had at least one or two encounters with the opposite sex. Just wouldn't flaunt, boast or brag about it. He was a gentleman and gentlemen have sex. IMHO.
Qnpoohbear wrote: He's not SHY or even reserved, he's a snob plain and simple. He was taught to think highly of himself "good principles in theory but not in practice." Until he meets Elizabeth and she tells it like it is, he's a snob.There's a lot of evidence that Darcy IS shy - he's not good at small talk, he doesn't like to meet new people, his best friend is outgoing and compensates for Darcy's reserve. Darcy's sister is noted to be very shy. Darcy is ALSO a snob at first, but snobs who are shy are different than snobs who aren't shy. I would expect a snob who is not shy to behave like Caroline Bingley. Once Darcy repairs his SNOB problem he exerts himself to be friendly with the Lizzy's aunt and uncle and father but otherwise doesn't behave much differently.
Mod
I have to come down on the side of Darcy NOT being a virgin. I firmly feel that his having a discreet and accurate-to-the-period experience where he could learn what he needed to know has no detrimental comment on his character. Some people seem to think that ONLY Darcy being a virgin for Lizzie can prove he respects women and really loves Lizzie but that's not true. Darcy's education in this area of life can be carried out in a respectful way and he NEEDS to know something prior to his wedding night. I agree with Emily when she wondered why some are wishing a virgin on Lizzie-- if neither of them knows what they're doing, a DISASTER of a wedding night is what they're facing. Given the historical era, Lizzie can't know much (if anything) and she certainly can't have any practical experience, so it's up to Darcy. I fear that any chance of a strong physical component to their love crumbles if their first encounter is horrible.
Is it a truth universally acknowledged that unless one partner in love-making has experience in advance of their first encounter, their wedding night must be horrible, and their love therefore doomed? I haven't been reading this long debate and thinking anyone is judging Mr. Darcy for getting himself some sexual experience, if that's what he did. But I can think of a lot of reasons why he might not have done that, which I already wrote in #112.
Sex between virgins is not horrifying, really it isn't. Two people in love, one of them with a sense of humor, are guaranteed to start with foreplay, which the man who bought his "experience" would know nothing of. A man whose "experience" was with a woman, whose purpose was to please her customer, is not gonna make a good lover for his virgin wife.
Sarah wrote: "Is it a truth universally acknowledged that unless one partner in love-making has experience in advance of their first encounter, their wedding night must be horrible, and their love therefore doom..."I agree completely.
LOL'd that first paragraph!
Sarah wrote: "A man whose "experience" was with a woman, whose purpose was to please her customer, is not gonna make a good lover for his virgin wife."So their love is doomed? It seems to me that you should make as much of an allowance for an experienced man in love as a virgin.
I make no claims either way but I would point out that even innocent, a 21st century couple, is likely to know more than a regency couple whether they want to or not, so the experience would not be entirely the same.
Sarah wrote: "A man whose "experience" was with a woman, whose purpose was to please her customer, is not gonna make a good lover for his virgin wife. ."Oh - highly disagree. I think a man who experienced losing his virginity with someone experienced may have some idea at the trepidation and anxiety his wife may be going thru.
Regardless of what Hollywood portrays losing your virginity is neither fun or enjoyable. It is a nerve wracking experience in which the virgin just wants to get over with.
So I believe that an experienced kind man, who cares and loves his wife. Would take it slowly and would try everything in his power to make her feel comfortable.
While an inexperienced man would try but not knowing and feeling the same trepidation and embarrassment himself he may be too much in his own head to think about his partner.
I want to make clear here that I believe Darcy not to be a virgin. However, I don't believe he frequented Brothels but may have been either taken by his Father once or twice and may have gone a perhaps infrequently himself afterwards. So when I say experienced I mean that he would know what sex is like and what it is about. Not that he's an expert and knows all the moves from the Kamasutra.
I understand from tv programmes I've watched on the era that the prevalent attitude to sex in the Georgian period wasn't the same as the later Victorian period and it wasn't viewed through quite the same moral view. I don't think it would have been seen as ungentlemanly behaviour to have a mistress, or to frequent brothels as an unmarried man. I forget the exact wording of the passages, but wasn't Colonel Brandon suspected of having a natural child, but still held up as a good man? A gentleman could have a mistress and remain a gentleman as long as he didn't ruin anybody and took care of any resultant children, but of course that is not to say that all unmarried gentlemen were sexually active. My personal feeling on the matter is that Darcy probably wasn't a virgin, living in London society as he did. I don't think he was shy, he was unsociable in Hertfordshire, but I put that down to snobbery more than anything, and when he is quiet in Kent his cousin laughs at him for his odd behaviour so I think he is usually more talkative. He doesn't like to dance with people he is unacquainted with, but I don't blame him, if you'd be stuck for half an hour per dance with somebody who may not be interesting to converse with! Not wanting to meet people isn't the same as being shy.
I imagine we can all agree that Mr. Darcy would be mortified at this whole conversation!
Ceri wrote: "I don't think he was shy, he was unsociable in Hertfordshire, but I put that down to snobbery more than anything, and when he is quiet in Kent his cousin laughs at him for his odd behaviour so I think he is usually more talkative."In fact, we see this when Elizabeth encounters him in his own home. His whole demeanor is changed, he's more sociable with her Aunt and Uncle. We could say that it is due to her admonishment of him but when we see him again at the Bennet's he's his brooding self.
I think when he finds himself with people he considers uncultured or not refined he tends to just retreat. In his home he seems fine and if he were shy he would have been shy with her Aunt and Uncle even in his own home (shyness is not dependent on location).
Yes I agree with you Edward. And I also agree with Sarah, Darcy would be disgusted by such an unrefined subject of conversation! :)
Yes Sarah hahaha he would be horrified!
I don't think there's a strong argument on either side to be honest, it wouldn't have been ungentlemanly to have done so, but that's not to say that he did and Austen could well have never considered the point either way, why would she?
I think the sexual exploits of the rakes you mention are frowned upon not so much for the fact that they're having sex, but the fact that they're ruining reputatations and leaving other people to pick up the pieces. It's the carnage left behind they're judged on, not the fact of them having sexual relationships.
He could have made that association, and if he were particularly religious he could have seen it as the path of sin. There is nothing to suggest that he is particularly religious however, he certainly has no particular regard for Mr Collins because of his profession, though he did respect it and know Wickham was not suited for it.
I do not believe that Darcy would ever be (or be worried about being) tempted to seduce an innocent, or do anything that he knew would bring harm to another or cause a scandal.
A gentleman of his character would know their own strength's and weaknesses and could make a distinction between actions that would bring harm and those that would perhaps benefit himself and others, whatever their social rank and position in society.
I tend to think he was not, but for me a bigger question is why does this matter to so many modern JAFF writers? I firmly believe this detail did not matter to Jane Austen. She grew up in a family with five brothers, and by the end of her life, when she started but did not finish Sanditon, she was starting to write from a male point of view in necessary scenes. We forget how young she was when she first wrote P & P as First Impressions.
I agree with you, Linda, I just don't think it matters. I've read the story so many times and I hadn't really considered it until I saw people questioning it.
I think it's natural for people to bring their ideas about virginity into a discussion centering on a romantic male lead. I think this discussion shows that there is a wide variety of opinions about sex and virginity, and I think that there has been this divide throughout all of human history despite ideas that there was unanimity at some point in time. I think that's an oversimplification of the past. For instance, Mary Crawford's view of sex was much different from Fanny Price's. I think people are picking what they believe about this issue based on how they view virginity and what they would consider ideal romantically. Some people like to think that it is romantic if sex is seen as special and only shared with someone you're in love with or married to. Others view sex in a more recreational mindset, a skill that should be practiced. When these views are shared, sometimes people hear in other's ideals a subtle condemnation of their own views. (Seeing virginity as an impediment or experience as a disease). It's difficult to navigate around this issue without offending someone.
That said-I think that Darcy probably was not a virgin. I don't think that he showed much respect towards women in the beginning of the story. I think he learned respect due to the sharp lesson he got when he proposed to Lizzie the first time. Remember, he outright insulted her and her family while he was proposing to her. He had no idea that his behavior was offensive, because he thought so much of his own status. I think he was kind to others but it was always a duty with him. When she finally accepted in the end, he said the thing that haunted him most was when she told him he had not behaved gentlemanly towards her. I think he realized then that his condescension was unbecoming and offensive.
Before Lizzie, I think he would have felt that the many women who would have flocked to him because of his wealth to have been lucky if he esteemed them enough to notice them. I doubt he had many experiences, because he was not a sensual profligate like Wickham.
Nicely put, and I agree that it doesn't really matter either way.
I don't think that Darcy was a virgin - men of his station could/would basically have a woman whenever they chose. I don't believe that he was a riotous carouser either, as he seems too proper and reserved, and sensitive.
Susan wrote: "You are right about the after effects being frowned on, but without the sex their wouldnt be the carnage. Any form of sexual liaison carried a risk of some form of fallout. Willoughby 'ruined' a girl as did Wickham and Crawford helped ruin a marriage and a married woman. All I am saying is that whether or not any of the commentators on this discussion or the society of the day considered keeping a mistress or visiting a brothel was okay is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not Darcy did. He may have decided that if he did this too might lead to carnage."For that matter at the time having sex with your wife would lead to pregnancy and child-birth was extremely dangerous. Sex may lead to death. Yes. But you will agree, presumably, that he had sex with Lizzy once they married. Sex may lead to carnage. Yes. If practiced heedlessly without any thought given to the situation of the woman you are doing it with. Nobody is claiming Darcy would ever do such a thing. If he would have done it, we all agreed, it would be in his character to have done so with the other person's consent and had the girl got pregnant or whatever, he would have probably done whatever responsible gentlemen did in such situations. Hence the difference between him and Austen villains.
Funny, I was talking about that today with my boyfriend.I find really hard to believe that, at a time where men were very idle and didn't have too much to do, he would be a virgin, would be able to resist the urges of hormones.
My boyfriend pointed out that men used to go to brothels, have parties there. The difference is that these gentlemen wouldn't think of these women as persons, as beings.
But I think Darcy would have considered them people/beings. Look at the way he treated his servants.
Soph wrote: "But I think Darcy would have considered them people/beings. Look at the way he treated his servants."I agree Soph.
Ceri wrote: "I think the sexual exploits of the rakes you mention are frowned upon not so much for the fact that they're having sex, but the fact that they're ruining reputatations and leaving other people to p..."Ceri - You are correct. When Lydia runs away with Wickham they are shocked because there is no consent when eloping. However, they are even more shocked when they find out that there were never planning on marrying. It wasn't Lydia's virginity or loss of that they were mourning but their reputation.
In addition, eloping meant circumventing the English Law (Hardwicke Act for the Prevention of Clandestine Marriages passed in 1754) which required "All minors who married by license without proper permission were not legally married at all. The marriage was null and void – never existing– from the beginning."
Hence it was the reputation of the family that the Bennetts were most worried about and not necessarily her virginity or lack thereof.
Susan wrote: "Ceri wrote: "All I am saying is that whether or not any of the commentators on this discussion or the society of the day considered keeping a mistress or visiting a brothel was okay is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not Darcy did. He may have decided that if he did this too might lead to carnage. "Granted we are all posting based on our own opinions of whether Darcy was/wasn't a virgin. Which in my opinion is irrelevant to the entire story.
Regardless of our own opinions or the norm of the day the only person who was privy to that information was Jane Austen. Since she's dead (unless you can perhaps conjure up her ghost) there really isn't a way of knowing one way or the other and everything we say here is pure speculation.
Case in point. In the Harry Potter series people speculated that Snape was a Vampire. Yet regardless of what people thought the author (J.K. Rowling) dispelled that notion entirely and definitely said Snape was not a Vampire at all.
Part of the fun (for me) of discussing books is just this sort of speculation, even if the author unlike JK Rowling, is long dead.
Edward wrote: "However, they are even more shocked when they find out that there were never planning on marrying."No they weren't.
Go back and check, Edward. The shock level doesn't rise, neither when Jane tells Elizabeth what Denny thought of Wickham's intending not to marry (p. 293), or when Mr. Bennett reads Uncle Gardiner's express that 'there were no plans to' (p. 306).
And on p. 286, Elizabeth herself has tears in her eyes when she's discussing with the Gardiners the idea of Lydia 'being lost to everything'.
Yes of course the Bennets were worried about the loss of their reputation in society, but Austen shows at least Lizzy was concerned with her sister's virginity.
Andrea (Catsos Person) wrote: "Part of the fun (for me) of discussing books is just this sort of speculation, even if the author unlike JK Rowling, is long dead."Andrea - I agree it is fun to speculate. I think sometimes folks get a little too passionate on the subject. It is nice to see other people's opinion and what they believe.
I like Ceri never even considered the idea of Darcy's Virginity or lack there of when reading the novel.
Edward, I didn't consider Darcy's sexual history when I read the novel either. I just wanted to chime in/defend speculation when discussing books and to say that I sometimes enjoy engaging in it with people here at GR.
Elizabeth wrote: "Yes of course the Bennets were worried about the loss of their reputation in society, but Austen shows at least Lizzy was concerned with her sister's virginity. "They never even discuss her Virginity. She cries because Lydia ran away with a man and it she's not married to him. Neither sex or virginity are ever even mentioned in the letters or their discussions.
Her uncle tries to reassure Elizabeth that Wickham will marry Lydia (he believe him to be a Gentleman) but Elizabet knows Wickham's nature and knows he will just use her and dump her.
In fact, Lydia herself believes they are running away to get married since she writes her sister telling her she will soon be signingr as Lydia Wickham. So, Elizabeth and Jane are aware of Wickham's previous endeavors and Jane even holds out hope that he does intend to marry Lydia.
However, not once was there a discussion of Virginity or Sex. Jane is further surprised (since she is so genteel) that Wickham wasn't intending on marrying Lydia but she is happy that everything turned out well.
Elizabeth wrote: "Edward wrote: "However, they are even more shocked when they find out that there were never planning on marrying."No they weren't.
Go back and check, Edward. The shock level doesn't rise, neith..."
I disagree, Jane’s initial reaction in her letter is that it’s imprudent... they are dismayed but they believe the outcome will be honourable. Because the letters are delayed Lizzy reads the next part immediately at which point they are alarmed because they no longer believe marriage to be their object.
‘being lost to everything’ refers, as far as I can tell, to her sense of honour, decency and what is due to her family, as well perhaps as any future love or happiness… she may include Lydia’s innocence in this, it is comprehensive, but I do not believe it is that she is focusing on.
The loss of character in this instance was of course linked to loss of virginity, however just being alone with a man overnight was enough to lose the former, whether or not anything happened.
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)
