YES. I've always HATED the fact that the show (and millions of fans too) don't even consider what Daphne did to Simon to be SA... And the fact that he is framed as being the one in the wrong throughout the situation just enrages me. Thankyou for talking about it, because it's definitely not discussed enough in general.
Makes me dreaded about Invincible, not gonna lie. Because there are shows like Bridgerton and the Boys that handle sexual assault on men very distastefully. (Spoiler) And Invincible’s most infamous scene in the comics is the scene that the protagonist got sexually assaulted by a woman. I hope the showrunners have enough self-awareness to handle this responsibly.
yup people twist it and blame it on the fact that he said he can’t *have* children when actually he doesn’t *want* children. sure, sticking to the truth would’ve been better but that doesn’t change the fact that it she s/a’d him. if the roles were reversed this never would’ve been a thing.
I hate Daphne's season. Realistically, in a time period like that they would have had a child sooner or later, accidentally or not, since they wouldn't use reliable contraceptives. I mean to say she really had no reason to do what she did...
What bothered me the most is just how, as you mentioned, the show still portrays Simon to be the only one in the wrong even after he gets assaulted by his own spouse. Daphne never apologizes or admits her wrongdoings and it's simply never brought up again.
You've perfectly put words on why I didn't watch more than the first season, and the rape that occurred. I am very happily child-free by choice, and the thought of someone being forced to perform sexual acts they don't consent to or have children they never wanted is absolutely horrific. No more Bridgerton for me.
the second season is actually great! it was the reason why people came back to the show, the first season was weird and it got progessively more bizarre
@@Lv-sg4zp Thanks for letting me know! Perhaps I'll binge it in a few years - as it is now, I just don't want to support a show that takes consent so lightly. I worked answering calls for a rape crisis hotline for some years, and can tell you that it affects a lot of men, too. The whole Julian Assange rape thing in Sweden was also about consent - yes, the women had consented to sex, but he had unprotected sex with them, which they hadn't consented to. Fortunately, in Sweden, there are laws to protect victims. Forcing someone to have unprotected sex and potentially have a child they don't want is beyond horrific, so while I believe you that the second season is better, I'll let it rest for a while longer... but again, I appreciate your feedback!
@ i completely understand and agree. I personally watched the show without paying for it (if you know what i mean), so it didn’t support the show financially, but i see where you’re coming from
But he was child free because of trauma. If you make that decision because it’s what you want, then that’s totally fine. But if it’s because of fear of some weird revenge, then that isn’t a healthy choice
@@Anna-B Still a choice though. Taking away someone's choice, whatever reason they've had for it, is indeed assault, as it takes away their consent. It comes with severe consequences to the survivor of the assault, and trying to reletavize the reasons for doing it is dangerous. How many times haven't you heard in films when men exclaim that lesbians or feminists would sing a different tune if they had some good d*ck, then committed acts of SA to "fix" them? In other words, there is NEVER a reason to take away someone's choice and consent, regardless of how they have reached their decisions.
I literally can’t stand Daphne because of what she did to Simon and it’s beyond gross that the show glossed over it. It was disturbing that she was upset with him afterwards too
Thank you for this video! I agree and have not watched past season 1 because I hated this so much. I also thought at the time that the best resolution would have been Simon and Daphne opening an orphanage or school for disabled children on the estate. It would have truly been the biggest fuck you to his ableist father, Simon wouldn't have to be in an explicit father role if he didn't want to and wouldn't have any biological children, and Daphne would have been surrounded by kids she could mother as she wanted. It being absolutely scandalous would have contributed to pissing his dad off.
Correct. And I think, for those crying "But muh historical accuracy!", there are historical analogues to the sort of resolution described here. (Petty bonus for Simon, but: He could very well have left the administration of the orphanage to Daphne if it made him uncomfortable to be near the children.)
@AngryTheatreMaker absolutely. In an era before fertility treatments, and when passing on your estate to your eldest son was common, there were a lot of infertile rich couples adopting children of relatively poorer relations. One of Jane Austen's brothers was adopted by a rich uncle. He took their name and inherited their fortune. Two of JA's novels include adopting a relative. The only thing that Simon couldn't have done is pass on his title to an adoptive son. It would die with him, so that fits perfectly with Simon's wishes.
@@angelicasmodel Therefore Simon could have said, "This is my heir, now bog off, you old buzzard". And it could have been a great way to show the new shape Daphne's nurturing instinct would have had to take on--then as now, there were as many opinions on adoption vs. children of one's blood as there were parents. (I think I've seen other romance series do this issue with more nuance and sensitivity since then, but don't quote me.)
Simon not being upfront about why he doesn't want children, is nothing i would hold against him. He is an abused child and he has every right to not share his childhood trauma with others including Daphne. And he rightfully doesn't trust Daphne with that information, because the moment she knows he physically can have kids, she rapes him, discards his trauma response as dumb revenge and manipulates him into having a child
One elements we need to take into consideration. There was no sex ed and Simon was deceitful with his child free life desires so it's more complicated than she saed him in my opinion.
I really struggled with season one for several reasons. Daphne's obsession with marriage and children made it difficult for me to get into the character, especially as someone choosing to be child-free. Then, Simon using her ignorance about sex to lie to her about his reasons for not having children didn't help to endear me to their romance in the slightest. The rape was the icing on top of a very uncomfortable cake. Everything about their romance felt unbalanced and icky, and the natalist messaging was the source of all of that ickiness. I was thrilled to see less of them in the following seasons.
I think it's hilarious to model your own life after this. Many people do not wish to have children simply because they can't afford it, or they want to do other things instead.... Simon and Daphne are both rich AF, and can't possibly have anything they want to do aside from domestic life as we're never told that they had other plans.
I could see the argument they all have to have kids because they all have kids in the books, as far as I know, but like you said, using historical accuracy doesn’t fly when they’ve made so many historical changes already.
4:52 I think this is why I liked princess Carolyn’s story so much. She’s a career woman’s who’s wanted kids tried doing it the “right way” and when it keeps not working says screw it im having a baby myself and finds Mr Right who compliments her life.
I love s1 but the post marital chikd thing was stupid and just drama for drama sake. It should have been dealt with prior to. Marriage. And the s/a scene would have been avoided
i know they changed the stories from the books up a lot to make them less problematic so i’m seriously surprised that they kept this disgusting scene in and that it’s never even mentioned that this is s/a. instead we’re sold that they became a beautiful love couple afterwards and that simon suddenly did want children after being vi0lated. i find it ironic how the third season was being picked apart by the fandom for (what i consider to be) miniscule reasons yet i hear crickets about the toxicity of season one. (that’s just my personal take tho!)
My biggest problem is that Simon is doing this out of vengeance instead of just not wanting kids because he doesn't want to repeat what happened to him. It makes him look a lot less reasonable.
Whatever reason he has is reason enough. He made it clear where he stands, she forced him past that point. You not agreeing with his why doesn't negate it. Assault is assault.
@nothingmuch2023 that's not my point. My point was that usually child free people are portrayed as crazy or overly bitter or nasty or mean or whatever. And that Simon should have had the right to just not want kids without childhood trauma getting in the way of it and giving Daphne a plot reason to persuade him otherwise. I never said that he was invalid or deserved to be assaulted. JFC
@@nothingmuch2023I 100% agree that Daphne shouldn’t have done what she did. But let’s not pretend that they came to an adult decision and she knew what she was getting into. Simon lied to her about something he knew was very important to her.
@@Anna-B Hmm. Let's weigh this on the scales, should we? He lied to her about something that was important to her. She assaulted him to get her way. Do you honestly think there's ever a reason good enough to say assault is okay? I don't. Here are some I've heard to justify assault: "He hit her physically because she cut him verbally, and he wasn't smart enough to fight back with words". Here's what else he could have done: Leave. Daphne made a decision to force him to do a sexual act he didn't want to do. Again, I can't ever think that is okay, and it's frightening that you are justifying her actions.
@@nothingmuch2023 I didn’t justify her actions. I literally said that she shouldn’t have done that. But we shouldn’t ignore Simons actions, because they were also wrong
I think season 1 went too close to the source material. In the books nothing feels earned, Julia Quinn just makes everything work because she needs to wrap up the book. The following seasons stray farther from the source material, and all the better for it.
i just think Daphne (and all the girls really) know so little about sex and about how their bodies work and everyting around that, and she was and felt so manipulated around it that i don't think we should expect and demand her to be aware of what she did to Simon. Someone has to explain to you and educate you about SA and sex, etc for you to really comprehend and be able to act or not act in consequence. we are seeing this in our 21 century minds
she knew, she did something he didn't wanted, she crossed his boundary anyways. And whether or not she knows about SA, the writers should know about it and portray SA as SA, but they do not, the acts like this was a little bit of a controversial action by her instead of she raped her husband.
@@joel0joel0 imo it doesn't matter what the writters know, but what this particular character in that particular time period knows. And yes she knows she did something he didn't want, but many characters do things others don't want. i insist, if she has no clue about sexual boundaries, how heavy it can be, the traumas it can cause, i cant put so much blame on her as everybody is doing. And she would know all that if somebody had tought her, instead of hiding information from her and lying and manipulating her.
This. Like it was going so good and I was so happy for them until Daphne did that to Simon. Maybe Simon should've been more open about his reasons but that did not give Daphne the right to do what she did to him. :/
I don't 100% remember the first season, but I think the "secret third option" was no option to Daphne, since it would very likely have meant a social step down. The likelihood of meeting another duke (or higher) in the same social season was just not there AND she had not met anybody else in the season who she was in any way interested in. The characters in Bridgerton as well as their choices just cannot be compared to the modern world and that is why I do not take issue with many plotlines I would deem unwatchable in a contemporary setting. Yes, what Daphne did to Simon would never ever be okay in today's world. But even if she would not have done it they very likely would have become parents, since we all know that the success rate of c. i., (very low with a pearl index of 4-18) which over the years would - statistically - have resulted in about one to five children. While don't know if Simon was aware of the extent of the risk he took, we can asssume that he knew that the method was not foolproof. That means he already accepted the risk of becoming a father everytime he slept with Daphne. Of course that is nothing she was aware of, but she was not aware of almost anything concerning pregnany and reproductive health, mostly because Simon kept this information from her. So, in my opinion, Daphne was simply a victim of the social norms of her time and neither on a personal nor on an objective level are her actions comparable with what we today would consider SA. Also she did agree to a childless life because she thought Simon could not have children. That is a huge difference to does not want any and keeps lying to her to make sure they will not become parents, even though he knows that her plans before marrying him always involved (many) children. So you cannot really say she went back on her word in any way, because she made her choices under false pretenses. Yes, she should have talked to him when she found out, but she had no indication to think that he would suddenly be honest with her. She knew the risk she was taking and the hurt she was causing, but deemed it justified because of the hurt she herself had endured. I think the show did a fantastic job in showing a morally gray situation in which both parties did bad things. Some of which seem unforgiveable for many people, which is fair - I am not sure that I could forgive these things. But I think we make a mistake, when we deem Daphne more at fault here, because her mistake aligns with what we today would classify as SA, when if we put it into historic context it just as morally gray as many other mistakes made by the characters. I also do not think that the choice to remain childfree is in any way comparable for a man and a woman (especially when you look back in history). Simon did not want kids because of a personal vendetta against his abusive father - there is no other reason and it is not a good one. Historically he would not have been involved in the upbringing of his children, if he did not wish to be. He would have had no reason to change his life, his ways or even his relationship with Daphne. She had all the reason to believe that he did not love her because he held a grudge against his (dead) father over her wishes - and that he did that behind her back because he did not consider her an equal. That being said, I do hope they do Eloise justice and make her storyline relatable for people who want to be childfree. But as I know from the books (no spoilers) there are many options to take that into account and still stay true to the original storyline.
All very good points, and I would add that Daphne's decision to marry Simon was more complicated than just "She had the hots for him." She _did_ but he also risked (and nearly ruined) her reputation by kissing her in semi-public. While I'm not _sure_ how exactly realistic the "We have to get married" trope in the show is (I think it is very likely a lot of situations with these types of couples in compromising positions just wouldn't have occurred) at least in the story, that kind of makes her decision _for_ her. Or, that and her brother trying to kill Simon. She's mostly leaning toward marrying the prince before that happens, because she doesn't think Simon actually loves her. (Because he flat out _tells_ her so, ffs.) Glossing over it as "She just should have chosen someone she knew shared her wishes for children." is being pretty unfair to her. And his perpetual dishonesty probably wouldn't encourage her towards a frank discussion, as opposed to just forcibly taking his sperm. Aside from that, though, it's not _unthinkable_ that Simon continually pulling out could have prevented Daphne from ever getting pregnant. The correct-use effectiveness of withdrawal is something like 95-96%. So, based on that, statistically, they'd have to be doing this for 20 years before a baby _definitely_ results. Of course, typical-use is lower because it's so user-dependent and typical use covers populations with little experience and with varying amounts of seriousness about avoiding pregnancy. But it's likely that individual men can be very successful with it. (I've read of and personally known a number of couples who successfully avoided pregnancy for years with withdrawal.) Yes, there are good reasons that people recommend against it for couples who are very risk-averse towards pregnancy, but in the early 1800s, there wasn't much else.
@@harringt100yes of course he could have been successful, but I would still argue it would have been very unlikely because he always pulled out at the last second which means a higher risk for error in the many years to come and more importantly it means that pre-cum already made its way in. My hypothesis is, that it would have been far more likely for them to have remained childless because of some biological/medical factor added in over the years (they maybe never even found out about because of the time) than because of Simon’s continuous pulling out.
@ of course it is not unthinkable, but unlikely still considering that he always pulled out at the last second and therefore pre-cum would have made its way inside every time they had sex PLUS Daphne being a Bridgerton and therefore very fertile (what they can at least suspect, given her family’s history and reputation).
I disagree that it's a mistake to deem Daphne more at fault here. I could understand the framing of the situation if the book that inspired the show was actually written in the 19th century, but it was not. It's a modern book and modern show written for a modern audience, which will obviously warrant modern day criticism.
I think the double standard for sa/r-word in media is still horrible. Watched some videos who talk how when men get @bu$€d people don't pay attention or turn it into comedy and I can agree
Also her not knowing a lot about sex is why she sa’d him imo. Yes it’s also because she felt betrayed but she should’ve had that conversation with him instead of… not respecting his consent. ( spoilers for queen charlotte) Also I’m not defending this show because it SUCKS at writing sa like in queen charlotte. The whole time it’s supposed to be funny that lady Danbury was assaulted? Yeah that’s gross asf. And it’s this pattern of it happening to black people which is also weird. I could be reaching like crazy but it’s still gross.
You should watch series 1 as it's the best in the entire Bridgerton televised series thus far. Both characters evolve and mature through their love for each other and their relationship is a successful one.
@@voulafisentzidis8830I personally disagree imo. I think they handle half of the subjects well. The whole sa scene plus the talk about race which was so weird were handled so poorly that it ruins the season for me. But I’m genuinely glad you enjoyed it
@dojasalieninthebasement3231 I watched series 1 only because of the fuss, and before having read the books. After that I read the Bridgerton series of books and genuinely believe the first series was better than the book - despite it being the American version of Regency London (including the featuring of stilettos which weren't invented until 1957). Since then they've altered the books to their detriment and brought in too many superfluous characters to make the series watchable. I managed to see series 3 in under four hours by skipping all the unnecessary scenes which didn't move the main story along but instead served to titivate viewers. Boring!
YES. I've always HATED the fact that the show (and millions of fans too) don't even consider what Daphne did to Simon to be SA... And the fact that he is framed as being the one in the wrong throughout the situation just enrages me. Thankyou for talking about it, because it's definitely not discussed enough in general.
I never watched the 1st season because of this. So gross!
Makes me dreaded about Invincible, not gonna lie. Because there are shows like Bridgerton and the Boys that handle sexual assault on men very distastefully.
(Spoiler)
And Invincible’s most infamous scene in the comics is the scene that the protagonist got sexually assaulted by a woman. I hope the showrunners have enough self-awareness to handle this responsibly.
yup people twist it and blame it on the fact that he said he can’t *have* children when actually he doesn’t *want* children. sure, sticking to the truth would’ve been better but that doesn’t change the fact that it she s/a’d him. if the roles were reversed this never would’ve been a thing.
I hate Daphne's season. Realistically, in a time period like that they would have had a child sooner or later, accidentally or not, since they wouldn't use reliable contraceptives. I mean to say she really had no reason to do what she did...
But she didn't know that, since neither her mother nor Simon ever explained that to her.
What bothered me the most is just how, as you mentioned, the show still portrays Simon to be the only one in the wrong even after he gets assaulted by his own spouse. Daphne never apologizes or admits her wrongdoings and it's simply never brought up again.
You've perfectly put words on why I didn't watch more than the first season, and the rape that occurred. I am very happily child-free by choice, and the thought of someone being forced to perform sexual acts they don't consent to or have children they never wanted is absolutely horrific. No more Bridgerton for me.
the second season is actually great! it was the reason why people came back to the show, the first season was weird and it got progessively more bizarre
@@Lv-sg4zp Thanks for letting me know! Perhaps I'll binge it in a few years - as it is now, I just don't want to support a show that takes consent so lightly. I worked answering calls for a rape crisis hotline for some years, and can tell you that it affects a lot of men, too.
The whole Julian Assange rape thing in Sweden was also about consent - yes, the women had consented to sex, but he had unprotected sex with them, which they hadn't consented to. Fortunately, in Sweden, there are laws to protect victims.
Forcing someone to have unprotected sex and potentially have a child they don't want is beyond horrific, so while I believe you that the second season is better, I'll let it rest for a while longer... but again, I appreciate your feedback!
@ i completely understand and agree. I personally watched the show without paying for it (if you know what i mean), so it didn’t support the show financially, but i see where you’re coming from
I didn't watch s1, only s2 and loved it.
Tge second season is amazing tho
Thank you for preventing me from watching this and getting furious. Natalist women--leave those childfree men for childfree women.
Heck yes!
But he was child free because of trauma. If you make that decision because it’s what you want, then that’s totally fine. But if it’s because of fear of some weird revenge, then that isn’t a healthy choice
@@Anna-B Still a choice though. Taking away someone's choice, whatever reason they've had for it, is indeed assault, as it takes away their consent. It comes with severe consequences to the survivor of the assault, and trying to reletavize the reasons for doing it is dangerous.
How many times haven't you heard in films when men exclaim that lesbians or feminists would sing a different tune if they had some good d*ck, then committed acts of SA to "fix" them?
In other words, there is NEVER a reason to take away someone's choice and consent, regardless of how they have reached their decisions.
@@Anna-B- and he didn't explain anything to her either.
@@Anna-Bthat's still valid tbh...
I literally can’t stand Daphne because of what she did to Simon and it’s beyond gross that the show glossed over it. It was disturbing that she was upset with him afterwards too
Thank you for this video! I agree and have not watched past season 1 because I hated this so much. I also thought at the time that the best resolution would have been Simon and Daphne opening an orphanage or school for disabled children on the estate. It would have truly been the biggest fuck you to his ableist father, Simon wouldn't have to be in an explicit father role if he didn't want to and wouldn't have any biological children, and Daphne would have been surrounded by kids she could mother as she wanted. It being absolutely scandalous would have contributed to pissing his dad off.
Omg this would've been the best!!
Correct. And I think, for those crying "But muh historical accuracy!", there are historical analogues to the sort of resolution described here. (Petty bonus for Simon, but: He could very well have left the administration of the orphanage to Daphne if it made him uncomfortable to be near the children.)
@AngryTheatreMaker absolutely. In an era before fertility treatments, and when passing on your estate to your eldest son was common, there were a lot of infertile rich couples adopting children of relatively poorer relations. One of Jane Austen's brothers was adopted by a rich uncle. He took their name and inherited their fortune. Two of JA's novels include adopting a relative.
The only thing that Simon couldn't have done is pass on his title to an adoptive son. It would die with him, so that fits perfectly with Simon's wishes.
@@angelicasmodel Therefore Simon could have said, "This is my heir, now bog off, you old buzzard". And it could have been a great way to show the new shape Daphne's nurturing instinct would have had to take on--then as now, there were as many opinions on adoption vs. children of one's blood as there were parents. (I think I've seen other romance series do this issue with more nuance and sensitivity since then, but don't quote me.)
Simon not being upfront about why he doesn't want children, is nothing i would hold against him. He is an abused child and he has every right to not share his childhood trauma with others including Daphne. And he rightfully doesn't trust Daphne with that information, because the moment she knows he physically can have kids, she rapes him, discards his trauma response as dumb revenge and manipulates him into having a child
One elements we need to take into consideration. There was no sex ed and Simon was deceitful with his child free life desires so it's more complicated than she saed him in my opinion.
I really struggled with season one for several reasons. Daphne's obsession with marriage and children made it difficult for me to get into the character, especially as someone choosing to be child-free. Then, Simon using her ignorance about sex to lie to her about his reasons for not having children didn't help to endear me to their romance in the slightest. The rape was the icing on top of a very uncomfortable cake. Everything about their romance felt unbalanced and icky, and the natalist messaging was the source of all of that ickiness. I was thrilled to see less of them in the following seasons.
That was SA, creepy and not romantic.
I think it's hilarious to model your own life after this. Many people do not wish to have children simply because they can't afford it, or they want to do other things instead....
Simon and Daphne are both rich AF, and can't possibly have anything they want to do aside from domestic life as we're never told that they had other plans.
I could see the argument they all have to have kids because they all have kids in the books, as far as I know, but like you said, using historical accuracy doesn’t fly when they’ve made so many historical changes already.
4:52 I think this is why I liked princess Carolyn’s story so much. She’s a career woman’s who’s wanted kids tried doing it the “right way” and when it keeps not working says screw it im having a baby myself and finds Mr Right who compliments her life.
I love s1 but the post marital chikd thing was stupid and just drama for drama sake. It should have been dealt with prior to. Marriage. And the s/a scene would have been avoided
i know they changed the stories from the books up a lot to make them less problematic so i’m seriously surprised that they kept this disgusting scene in and that it’s never even mentioned that this is s/a. instead we’re sold that they became a beautiful love couple afterwards and that simon suddenly did want children after being vi0lated.
i find it ironic how the third season was being picked apart by the fandom for (what i consider to be) miniscule reasons yet i hear crickets about the toxicity of season one. (that’s just my personal take tho!)
My biggest problem is that Simon is doing this out of vengeance instead of just not wanting kids because he doesn't want to repeat what happened to him. It makes him look a lot less reasonable.
Whatever reason he has is reason enough. He made it clear where he stands, she forced him past that point. You not agreeing with his why doesn't negate it. Assault is assault.
@nothingmuch2023 that's not my point. My point was that usually child free people are portrayed as crazy or overly bitter or nasty or mean or whatever. And that Simon should have had the right to just not want kids without childhood trauma getting in the way of it and giving Daphne a plot reason to persuade him otherwise. I never said that he was invalid or deserved to be assaulted. JFC
@@nothingmuch2023I 100% agree that Daphne shouldn’t have done what she did. But let’s not pretend that they came to an adult decision and she knew what she was getting into. Simon lied to her about something he knew was very important to her.
@@Anna-B Hmm. Let's weigh this on the scales, should we?
He lied to her about something that was important to her.
She assaulted him to get her way.
Do you honestly think there's ever a reason good enough to say assault is okay?
I don't.
Here are some I've heard to justify assault:
"He hit her physically because she cut him verbally, and he wasn't smart enough to fight back with words".
Here's what else he could have done: Leave.
Daphne made a decision to force him to do a sexual act he didn't want to do. Again, I can't ever think that is okay, and it's frightening that you are justifying her actions.
@@nothingmuch2023 I didn’t justify her actions. I literally said that she shouldn’t have done that. But we shouldn’t ignore Simons actions, because they were also wrong
I think season 1 went too close to the source material. In the books nothing feels earned, Julia Quinn just makes everything work because she needs to wrap up the book. The following seasons stray farther from the source material, and all the better for it.
i just think Daphne (and all the girls really) know so little about sex and about how their bodies work and everyting around that, and she was and felt so manipulated around it that i don't think we should expect and demand her to be aware of what she did to Simon. Someone has to explain to you and educate you about SA and sex, etc for you to really comprehend and be able to act or not act in consequence. we are seeing this in our 21 century minds
she knew, she did something he didn't wanted, she crossed his boundary anyways. And whether or not she knows about SA, the writers should know about it and portray SA as SA, but they do not, the acts like this was a little bit of a controversial action by her instead of she raped her husband.
@@joel0joel0 imo it doesn't matter what the writters know, but what this particular character in that particular time period knows. And yes she knows she did something he didn't want, but many characters do things others don't want. i insist, if she has no clue about sexual boundaries, how heavy it can be, the traumas it can cause, i cant put so much blame on her as everybody is doing. And she would know all that if somebody had tought her, instead of hiding information from her and lying and manipulating her.
This. Like it was going so good and I was so happy for them until Daphne did that to Simon. Maybe Simon should've been more open about his reasons but that did not give Daphne the right to do what she did to him. :/
I don't 100% remember the first season, but I think the "secret third option" was no option to Daphne, since it would very likely have meant a social step down. The likelihood of meeting another duke (or higher) in the same social season was just not there AND she had not met anybody else in the season who she was in any way interested in.
The characters in Bridgerton as well as their choices just cannot be compared to the modern world and that is why I do not take issue with many plotlines I would deem unwatchable in a contemporary setting.
Yes, what Daphne did to Simon would never ever be okay in today's world. But even if she would not have done it they very likely would have become parents, since we all know that the success rate of c. i., (very low with a pearl index of 4-18) which over the years would - statistically - have resulted in about one to five children. While don't know if Simon was aware of the extent of the risk he took, we can asssume that he knew that the method was not foolproof. That means he already accepted the risk of becoming a father everytime he slept with Daphne. Of course that is nothing she was aware of, but she was not aware of almost anything concerning pregnany and reproductive health, mostly because Simon kept this information from her. So, in my opinion, Daphne was simply a victim of the social norms of her time and neither on a personal nor on an objective level are her actions comparable with what we today would consider SA.
Also she did agree to a childless life because she thought Simon could not have children. That is a huge difference to does not want any and keeps lying to her to make sure they will not become parents, even though he knows that her plans before marrying him always involved (many) children. So you cannot really say she went back on her word in any way, because she made her choices under false pretenses. Yes, she should have talked to him when she found out, but she had no indication to think that he would suddenly be honest with her. She knew the risk she was taking and the hurt she was causing, but deemed it justified because of the hurt she herself had endured.
I think the show did a fantastic job in showing a morally gray situation in which both parties did bad things. Some of which seem unforgiveable for many people, which is fair - I am not sure that I could forgive these things. But I think we make a mistake, when we deem Daphne more at fault here, because her mistake aligns with what we today would classify as SA, when if we put it into historic context it just as morally gray as many other mistakes made by the characters.
I also do not think that the choice to remain childfree is in any way comparable for a man and a woman (especially when you look back in history). Simon did not want kids because of a personal vendetta against his abusive father - there is no other reason and it is not a good one. Historically he would not have been involved in the upbringing of his children, if he did not wish to be. He would have had no reason to change his life, his ways or even his relationship with Daphne. She had all the reason to believe that he did not love her because he held a grudge against his (dead) father over her wishes - and that he did that behind her back because he did not consider her an equal.
That being said, I do hope they do Eloise justice and make her storyline relatable for people who want to be childfree. But as I know from the books (no spoilers) there are many options to take that into account and still stay true to the original storyline.
All very good points, and I would add that Daphne's decision to marry Simon was more complicated than just "She had the hots for him." She _did_ but he also risked (and nearly ruined) her reputation by kissing her in semi-public. While I'm not _sure_ how exactly realistic the "We have to get married" trope in the show is (I think it is very likely a lot of situations with these types of couples in compromising positions just wouldn't have occurred) at least in the story, that kind of makes her decision _for_ her. Or, that and her brother trying to kill Simon.
She's mostly leaning toward marrying the prince before that happens, because she doesn't think Simon actually loves her. (Because he flat out _tells_ her so, ffs.) Glossing over it as "She just should have chosen someone she knew shared her wishes for children." is being pretty unfair to her. And his perpetual dishonesty probably wouldn't encourage her towards a frank discussion, as opposed to just forcibly taking his sperm.
Aside from that, though, it's not _unthinkable_ that Simon continually pulling out could have prevented Daphne from ever getting pregnant. The correct-use effectiveness of withdrawal is something like 95-96%. So, based on that, statistically, they'd have to be doing this for 20 years before a baby _definitely_ results. Of course, typical-use is lower because it's so user-dependent and typical use covers populations with little experience and with varying amounts of seriousness about avoiding pregnancy. But it's likely that individual men can be very successful with it. (I've read of and personally known a number of couples who successfully avoided pregnancy for years with withdrawal.) Yes, there are good reasons that people recommend against it for couples who are very risk-averse towards pregnancy, but in the early 1800s, there wasn't much else.
@@harringt100yes of course he could have been successful, but I would still argue it would have been very unlikely because he always pulled out at the last second which means a higher risk for error in the many years to come and more importantly it means that pre-cum already made its way in.
My hypothesis is, that it would have been far more likely for them to have remained childless because of some biological/medical factor added in over the years (they maybe never even found out about because of the time) than because of Simon’s continuous pulling out.
@ of course it is not unthinkable, but unlikely still considering that he always pulled out at the last second and therefore pre-cum would have made its way inside every time they had sex PLUS Daphne being a Bridgerton and therefore very fertile (what they can at least suspect, given her family’s history and reputation).
I disagree that it's a mistake to deem Daphne more at fault here. I could understand the framing of the situation if the book that inspired the show was actually written in the 19th century, but it was not. It's a modern book and modern show written for a modern audience, which will obviously warrant modern day criticism.
@anacarla6888 I'm confused. You think modern criticism is warranted, but a modern critique should make Daphne _less_ at fault?
I think the double standard for sa/r-word in media is still horrible. Watched some videos who talk how when men get @bu$€d people don't pay attention or turn it into comedy and I can agree
I never watched the first season for this reason
Same!
Also her not knowing a lot about sex is why she sa’d him imo. Yes it’s also because she felt betrayed but she should’ve had that conversation with him instead of… not respecting his consent. ( spoilers for queen charlotte) Also I’m not defending this show because it SUCKS at writing sa like in queen charlotte. The whole time it’s supposed to be funny that lady Danbury was assaulted? Yeah that’s gross asf. And it’s this pattern of it happening to black people which is also weird. I could be reaching like crazy but it’s still gross.
They could just make Eloise infertile, or have her marry a man who is.
Oh, I shun season one for this reason but....I still like season two and three
You should watch series 1 as it's the best in the entire Bridgerton televised series thus far.
Both characters evolve and mature through their love for each other and their relationship is a successful one.
@@voulafisentzidis8830I personally disagree imo. I think they handle half of the subjects well. The whole sa scene plus the talk about race which was so weird were handled so poorly that it ruins the season for me. But I’m genuinely glad you enjoyed it
@dojasalieninthebasement3231 I watched series 1 only because of the fuss, and before having read the books. After that I read the Bridgerton series of books and genuinely believe the first series was better than the book - despite it being the American version of Regency London (including the featuring of stilettos which weren't invented until 1957). Since then they've altered the books to their detriment and brought in too many superfluous characters to make the series watchable. I managed to see series 3 in under four hours by skipping all the unnecessary scenes which didn't move the main story along but instead served to titivate viewers. Boring!
You should watch the queen charlotte spin off. You would have gotten a LOT of extra points to add to this video.
Preach!
Haven’t watched yet but all I’m going to say is pro-Natalism has compulsory sexuality and allonormativity baked into it by default!
8:30 another asexual parallel!
👍👍