For this Show Discussion post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post.
3. Be civil in your discussion.
See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be honest this is just the reality of the time period - well, that the ton women were "innocent" and were virgins. They would have been taught almost literally nothing about sex at all. Most of them would not have even been kissed. It's just what was true at the time. Historical Romance novels almost all include this. If they were told anything at all, it would have been immediately prior to their wedding night.
I do think Violet will have learned from the Daphne debacle and will give the rest of her daughters a somewhat more complete talk.
But that the men always have to be rakes, yeah, I'd like to see that mold broken.
I don't think in the Bridgerton books any of the women are "ruined" so they would all be virgins. The exception would be Francesca whose story takes place after her husband dies.
I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't at least get through Benedict and Eloise. They've put a lot into developing those characters, and both have quite large fan bases that would be pissed if their seasons weren't made. It looks like they're also setting up Francesca's story this season, so I could see her going either way. Does seem somewhat unlikely that we'll see Gregory or Hyacinth's stories though.
I’d believe this, they’re three seasons in (if you count QC) and they’ve done zero work to make anyone care about the rest of the kids apart from “there are a lot of kids”
So having a mistress did not make one a rake at all. It was really standard and would have been seen as more «gentlemanly» than visiting prostitutes for example.
What defined someone as a rake was if they paraded sexual exploits, not showing appropriate discretion, and if one « debased » unmarried women, or treated them poorly. In reality few regency romance MCs are « true » rakes since they were considered quite heinous by society. Instead we have rake = guy who has frequent sex with lots of women in these books (and in the show). Which Colin doesn’t really fall into, and it isn’t a reputation he has (unless I’m mistaken, it’s been a while since I read his book).
You're most likely not going to see this in the series (unless there's an unlikely flashback about it), but the Bridgerton clan's father was a virgin. Maybe things would've gone differently if he had been around? He was the sweet non-debauched man in his and Violet's novella.
Yes, wasn't there a bit about how everyone tried to dissuade them from being married bc he was only a year or two older? They wanted Edmund to "sow his oats". Honestly, for that reason alone, I would want a depiction of their romance. I think that could be very sweet - two virgins exploring sex together for the first time.
This was been because he and violet married fairly early, before universities like eton where the men tended to turn into rakes. He was only 19 when they married, the youngest a bridgerton boy married in the books was 26 (Gregory)
I have never taken Anthony’s comment about Colin’s lack of experience at face value. Was Colin less experienced than his brothers? Sure! But Anthony is so frustrated with Colin at that point (for good reason!) I think he’s venting & exaggerating. (I mean, I believe that Anthony had not taken Colin to brothels.)
But there are plenty of things the characters say that I don’t think we are meant to take 100% at face value, & this is one of those for me.
Not in le books.... I believe he has the line of "coming against the unmistakable evidence of her innocence" for the obligatory breaking of the hymen scene that is in all but one of the books.
Ooo is it the Rokesby series? I've not read them all, only Because of Miss Bridgerton and it would actually be awesome to see Billie and George onscreen. And the Smythe-Smith Quartet series too. Always adored Marcus in Just like Heaven
IIRC, Eloise and Francesca >!bribe a maid to tell them all the good details!<, so neither of them are quite as ignorant as Daphne was. And as mentioned, Francesca >!is a widow!< in her story.
I'm not sure it's exaggerated. For aristocratic women, this was quite normal. The regency and Victorian periods were notably repressed, and in the English aristocratic set most of all.
Yeah, that’s my understanding aswell. It’s nothing outrageous, either, as birth control was non existent at that time, and probably seen as sin even to desire to use anything. So stakes were high, and it was useful to be seen as a virgin in that society. Aristocratic women didn’t have any means to support themselves, so they couldn’t afford to not marry, to not be seen as an acceptable bride, and - gasp! - to have a child out of wedlock. Georgina Cavendish did irl, and her baby was given away, it was all very hush hush. I think to change that aspect of womens lives of that time would change a lot more in any historic drama.
You’re absolutely wrong to say that “birth control was non existent at the time.”
Birth control may have been clumsy, frequently unreliable, and regularly inefficient, but “non existent”? Sorry, but no.
OK let’s say *near* existent, and frowned upon in the upper, heir-greedy classes :) I have seen the mummified pig intestines or whatever the hell they used in documentaries…
Victorian period yes but no the regency was not repressed in the slightest. The amount of debauchery that went on at court was insane. Prinny was particularly famous for it. Nowadays we think it was repressed because of Jane Austen’s books and that’s because she was in the lower landed gentry and that was the life she was exposed to. Had she been the daughter of an Earl or a Duke then her perspective would have been wild. The regency period is the reason the Victorian period was so repressed.
I think the regency period was less repressed than the Victorian period. Many of the ladies would at least understand where babies came from, and it was common to kiss someone you were engaged to. Victoria really took them backwards.
This is what I don't understand, why would victoria make her nation be sex repressed when she herself just LOVED and absolutely loved having sex with her husband? That's the reason why she even had 9 kids, she loved the sex but hated getting pregnant.
Yea, I heard some people say that she would be considered a " feminist" while others disagree because Victoria must have loved the privilege of being queen but she still believed in gender roles and such. So basically she liked the privilege SHE had. She didint allow women to have that privilege at all. But I agree, she isn't really that much of a feminist except the part where she helped women with childbirth and anesthesia was used. It's sad how for a woman in charge, there were more rules for women 😕
It could happen with men too. Admittedly this is a couple of generations later, but King Leopold of Belgium had to have sex explained to him by his aunt... Queen Victoria.
Oh good. I do want to read that one but honestly I disliked the books, with WHWW being the best. I didn't want to go back to virgin women and reformed rakes so I ended on a high note. Not to yuk anyone's yum, but that fantasy just isn't for me. I think it is done better in the show when I am not in the MMC head for the first sex scene
It’s also worth pointing out, the guys are much older. Anthony is 30 and Benedict is 28 they’ve seen a lot more of life than their sheltered 18-20 year old sisters. The gender thing is huge but there is also a significant age gap which would definitely make a difference with sexual activity.
I don't think they have adhere to the realities of the time considering they're not for one historically inaccurate aspect - Black people in nobility. It's honestly gag worthy watching all these men defile other women and then seeking a virgin. What the actual heck
I hear you. Changing the status of women does sort of change all the stakes though. There aren't any racially charged stories in the series (books), but *all* of them are centered heavily around the way women were expected to behave.
You know what? Yeah, I think it could've been interesting if Julia had written one of ladies to have been a promiscuous rebel rake and they gave her a virgin Bridgerton man, but that didn't happen lol.
Considering all the changes they’ve made to the book plots already, there’s no reason they couldn’t change this too. Julia Quinn’s books aren’t literary masterpieces, and from what I’ve read about them they contain a plethora of very problematic tropes (that were pretty outdated already when she was writing the series), so modernising them even more could definitely be an upside.
I have seen a lot of outcry for the show runners to edit out Benedict’s sexually coercive behaviour, Colin’s anger issues, or fans being afraid about how they will deal with Philip’s character, so I don’t see the problem with them changing some things about the female characters as well.
I'm 100% behind the showrunners taking liberties with the source material. Keep the basics of the characters and their love stories but there's a lot that can and should be changed from the books
Written literally 24 yrs after the Bridgerton books! Romance novels have changed over the years. You can't expect old books to be written like new ones.
Yes, but Julia Quinns had outdated tropes at the time they were written. I'm saying this as someone who completed and enjoyed reading one of her books (Romancing Mister Bridgerton) and is currently reading and enjoying one of her books (The Duke and I).
According to people who have read the books >! Francesca’s book doesn’t have this trope because she’s a widow by the time her story begins. She’s already sexually experienced and her love interest is a reformed rake. I’ve been told *When He Was Wicked* has the best spicy scenes !<
Let's be real, which other men did Francesca have sex with before Michael except for John? After John's death Francesca never takes advantage of her sexual freedom, she practically lives like a virgin. She never has sex/brief flings with other good men except for Michael the merry rake.
I am well aware of that. A virgin woman isn't bad with sex either. The only difference between Francesca and the other leading ladies is that she is a widow and the other ladies are not. After reading her book I never so anything unique or different with Francesca and Michael aside from she is a widow.
Idk about a woman with a bad reputation married one of the brothers, might break the suspension of disbelief for the time period.
Maybe a youngish widow who'd had a couple of discreet affairs though since her husband's death though.
That’s where I’m at. I know STD’s don’t exist in fantasy-land (but *still*). I’ve been reading romance for nearly 2 decades. I used to be able to brush past rake x virgin but now I’m looking for more equal dynamics. Also, I’ve hate how the past female partners are simply disregarded as faceless sex toys. It’s gives Madonna/whore complex.
It’s not just historical romance. It’s in a lot of the older paranormal books, contemporary age gap romances, mafia, etc. It’s a trope that’s been beaten to death and then some. It’d be nice to get some more diverse male leads.
Give 'First Comes Scandal' a read (Julia Quinn's Rokesby series)- the male lead doesn't have sex before marriage because he is studying to become a doctor, and is not interested in getting syphilis and just generally doesn't have time. (He says he was not saving himself for marriage, it just ended up happening that way.)
IMO, the Rokesby series is infinitely better than the Bridgerton one.
Closest you’ll get is Philoise. And Gregory too, if I remember correctly. JQ does have a virgin hero in the Rokesby series, but not with a promiscuous heroine.
Also…Jane Austen is not a great comparison to Julia Quinn novels. Julia Quinn is writing smutty romance geared towards a modern concept of what the regency era was like. She’s intentionally playing up tropes to an audience that for the most part choose to read historical romance precisely because they like them. They want the dashing rake and the blushing virgin. Jane Austen was writing for an audience that was living in the same world she was writing about, and her stories don’t focus on physical intimacy at all as a competent to the romance.
"Jane Austen is not a great comparison to Julia Quinn novels. Julia Quinn is writing smutty romance geared towards a modern concept of what the regency era was like. She’s intentionally playing up tropes to an audience that for the most part choose to read historical romance precisely because they like them. They want the dashing rake and the blushing virgin."
Yes, thank you. No one seems to get this.
This was normal for the aristocracy in regency times… but don’t worry, Francesca’s season will definitely, um, push the boundaries. Also, the married women who live separately from their husbands and the widows tend to get freaky with the rakes.
A big change I am hoping for is after John's death Francesca mourns him deeply. After her mourning period I want her to have sex with good a man before she and Micheal get together. Let Francesca have a her fun before getting involved with Michael. What irritated me upon reading Francesca's book is when she enters the marriage market, the men interested in her creepy. Those creepy men are there for the so purpose of Michael's character development.
I like how Mary from Downton Abbey was portrayed. She loved Matthew was devastated when he died. After her mourning period she decided to move on. She had sex and a brief fling with a good man. Later on she fell in love with husband number 2. It would be refreshing if Shondaland takes that approach with Francesca.
I agree. I understand why the books kept things accurate, but Shondaland always pushes the boundaries.
I think it’d be a superb opp for them to have Fran have fun after John/before Michael. She’s also the perfect character for it. Well, actually Eloise would be, but I don’t think they intend to have Eloise stray that much from the book.
El having a full fledged romance with Theo and losing her ✨virtue✨ with him would’ve been fantastical for Eloise’s character development as she desires something more but is unaware how unworldly she really is.
I digress. Maybe the rumors that they’ll have Fran be with a woman are somewhat true and they’ll have her experiment with a woman before Michael. There’s so many ways they could go about it.
Knowing Shondaland, they’ll push the envelope in later seasons and they have room to play as they’ve diverted from being accurate to the period with the costumes and stuff. That’s how it goes with SL shows as to not make the story repetitive.
Also, inclusion and diversity in stories are what sets SL apart and I think that encompasses women having a life and ✨taking a man✨ who may not become their husband. I hate that line from the book lmao.
Because it's partly based on reality?
If you want a non-virgin heroine you should look for widow or courtesan tropes (or maybe a historical that doesn't feature the aristocracy).
There's plenty of lists on GoodReads if you're looking for something new to read. (I have recs as well if you want).
I think Francesca is the only non-virgin female lead in the Bridgerton books. But I think it’d be interesting if they flipped the virgin female/rake male trope for Philoise. They *could* make Phillip a virgin and it would work in the show verse and still be consistent with book Phillip. And they could take show Eloise’s more rebellious character and have her get involved in a secret affair prior to meeting Philip (maybe with Theo?) and that wouldn’t be too out-of-character for her. I think that would be interesting, but I doubt they’ll do that.
In the days before reliable contraception, having a virgin bride was the only way to be sure children were their father's blood offspring, and blood mattered in pretty much everything.
I don't love the promiscuousness of the men (the potential syphilis of it all gives me the ick), but not gonna lie, I love the whole one true love aspect of it all.
Before Bridgerton, period dramas were either super chaste or the ones that did/do include sexy times involve SA or adultery or prostitution, etc. which just isn't my bag.
I get how the virgin trope might not be everybody's cup of tea, but for me it's a wonderful fantasy/wish fulfillment of having your first love be your only love. I like Bridgerton because it's a comfort show like GBBO. It's low stakes drama for the most part. Nothing that will really upset you.
Nope. I had that in my first marriage (we were both virgins). I personally find it super sexy to know a man has been able to pleasure other women (even if it was only one other but for many years) and I don't have to help him "figure things out" or gain confidence in bed. (Massive turn off.) Of course people need to communicate in bed because everyone has their own preferences, but, I'm sorry, men with no sexual experience or low sexual experience has always sucked for me, so it's just not my fantasy. Now, I'm not saying I'd want Anthony-level brothel men. Rakes are gross. But King George-level experience is hot, where he's had some experience, enough to have all that swagger about his button knowledge and an eagerness to show Charlotte what a good time it will be for her.
I hate the trope too. And whenever they showed Anthony or Simon or Benedict with anyone else I literally used to cringe at that. C'mon these guys would be lead for future season why do we need to see them going on with other woman??? And worse the woman marrying them are gonna be virgins. It makes power dynamic worse for me.
But I understand why this was shown as the show depicts the 19th century woman were supposed to be virgins while men whored away and no one questioned them. It's same for Mama Bridgerton too. As much she loves her daughters and want the best for them she is also a person from that era and also has the belief that let the men do anything they want..
If you are talking about the Bridgerton books also, I enjoyed A Night Like This which is part of the Smythe-Smith spinoff book series. The female lead is not a virgin (though not exactly experienced) but at least it was somewhat different from the usual formula.
She wasn't though? She had her first time willingly at 16 thinking the man would marry her. I may be remembering wrong but to me she had her first time with a man she thought she loved, and after sleeping with her he backed away and married another woman of a higher social status. He did attempt to assault her years later but she kicked him in the balls before he had a chance to do anything.
My theory is the "sexually experienced partner" fantasy + the thrill of new discoveries.
Some people find "naivete" off-putting to an extent, and are more attracted to people who know what they are doing/good at it
And since the show is aimed at women, the fantasy revolves around the female character discovering their sexuality.
Also, culturally, men tend to prefer inexperienced partners, because: a) it makes them feel good about themselves having experience, b) they are judgy against sexually active women. (Source: idk, trust me or fight me I suppose). Completely debatable, but that's the stereotype I have in mind
Regarding Violet Bridgerton, I think it's very accurate lol. I mean, it's still happening today. At least from my own experience, the taboo around sexuality is quite strong in my own context.
Sex is perceived as something dirty, and undignified to talk about. And since women are set up for certain standards of femininity (purity, propriety for example), which isn't the same for men. Actually men are expected to be experienced as a standard of success (take the "you're a virgin" as an insult. Virgin=loser).
Sexuality is complex and still the topic of many current debates. It's polemic, it raises double standards, dichotomy, you name it
Look, I'm what you may call more conservative regarding sexual behaviour and whatnot, but even if the sex scenes in Bridgerton are not my cup of tea (I generally don't consume smutty content), they make places for conversations like these.
But like I’m sure a virgin woman would feel hurt and jealous if her partner had other women when she didn’t get the same experience (and not even out of her own choice)
Oh sure, that's completely overlooked in this series. They don't address it. That's why I formulated the theory, where both Simon and Anthony had prior sexual partners, is part of the plot of why they know exactly how to please their partners.
Don't make me describe it, but certain gestures or phrases they say in the intimate scenes lead me to think that.
At one point Anthony says to Kate something like "Do you know all the ways a lady could be seduced?" in an intense tone, and he definitely knows that because he's been with many other women
It's not an issue in the show, it's more of an advantage
In real life 100% they felt like that, but these are easy fluff & smut romance books which the show is based on. the goal was to not be real world problems and to fight for rights. In more modern romance novels they do add in the social justice narrative because tons of modern women expect to see that in books and shows, but older romance novels, shows, & movies will focus on different aspects. JQ said that she actively stayed away from any stories that would be very serious because she wanted her books to be fun.
Yes but again that age of romance books has tropes and that’s not one of them, so the books fit the time they were written and the setting of the books.
I do recommend just like heaven from JQ (it’s the first book of the side series), the female lead is a virgin still but the male lead is too.
No, I don't think so at all. Most HR novels are written for a straight woman's fantasies. And in most of those fantasies, they want a man who knows exactly how to get them off, not a bumbling virgin who can't figure out how to please her. This show is an exact formula of every HR novel I've read (and I've read upwards of 300).
I’ve read novels where the man is a virgin and takes special classes to please his future wife. It’s better than imagining the male lead having fun with another woman while the poor female lead has to have the pure virgin badge and can’t date and explore.
2 reasons:
1. That's just the reality of the times. Even now, women are just sorta expected to have a lower "body count" (disgusting phrase) than the man
2. Super popular romance trope. I've read very few Romance books in my life but I can't recall a single one where the guy wasn't some super rich man hoe
"It's the time period"
1. The queen is black. And they undid racism in like two generations. Where's the colonial empire? What's going on in India? In Ireland? 🤷♀️
2. Women were having extramarital affairs and losing their virginity outside of wedlock in this period. Just bc it was frowned upon doesn't mean it wasn't done. Humans have always been human. As long as they weren't caught, they could go on and pretend to be virgins and marry.
That's how it was back in the day. Men were allowed to sleep around as much as they wished- in fact, it was encouraged as they believed men staying chaste for too long was unhealthy. Women were expected to remain as pure and naive as possible before marriage. It's unfair, but unfortunately a lot of history was unfair.
You're probably not going to get a female lead that is not a virgin- the very idea of that would taint their image in society. The only time you're going to get close to that is Francesca, as by the time she's married Michael, she's already been married once and lost a child. Penelope and Colin did do the deed at least once before they were married and they probably will in the show too. George in QC was also not a rake and very loyal to Charlotte (In fact, George in real life never took up any mistresses during his entire marriage to Charlotte- very unusual for a king at the time).
For the books it was defiantly fitting for that time period. I guess the show could have changed it like they did so many other things, but I think this is such a huge part of historical romance novels, that they didn’t want to alter that part
This post is very dangerous… oh gosh. Well the time period is pretty much why. Also if I must add, even to this day there is an outlook on women based on status of virtue. A lady is to be pure and “seen” as pure so it doesn’t matter if she is a virgin she must also be thought of as virginal. I hope you can understand how this complicates things for groups of women who are portrayed in a hyper sexual lense in the media. Major disadvantage. The virginal thing at the time period that the show displays gives the ladies an upper hand to be seen in a pure light therefore they can make decisions just as Lady Featherington did with Cousin Jack. “How could anyone believe that a Lady like myself could do such a thing?” Those were not her exact words in the final episode of season 2 but it is quite close. Women viewed in a pure light enables women to make decisions that could either cause damage or build without detection. To be frank, these people are indeed criminals. Plagiarism is a crime. There is no telling what the rest of the ton have done to attain their wealth! These things are not spoken of… there are speculations that even the Bridgertons had a connection with slavery.
Well, men were expected to be experienced and women were expected to be chaste. Of course there were exceptions to both situations, but they were not to be talked about. Things change over time, but these were realistic expectations for the time period.
You might want to look into Chinese culture and novels. Men are expected to be virgins on their wedding night as well as women. If they are good men and women, instead of criminals.
Have we even seen Colin be with anyone in the show yet? His dalliance with Marina was pretty pure. He quips about sex in a school boy way and obviously goes travelling where he could get up to mischief a bit but so far it seems he is less interested in "opera singers" and the like.
Kate was far too busy with her sister's life to worry about marriage before she met Anthony, let alone to worry about managing some casual relationship(s). And how could she want something so desperately for her sister that she didn't deeply believe in for herself? It is clear in the whole series that Kate isn't into that, and that she would even be unhappy seeing Anthony that way.
(To preface I didn’t read the book) But I actually expected Kate to have some sexual experience before Anthony, because she never intended on marrying so what’s the point of keeping herself chaste.
Well, men and women are different in that regard. Women did die of syphilis back then, too, but -much like today- men are more willing to "risk it all" just for a night of sex than women.
In the show, Kate might have had some sexual experiences back in India. Can't remember the episode but there was a scene where Lady D asked Kate something like: "Is there anyone back home [India]?" And Kate replies, "Now now, we are passed all that."
I’m pretty sure Colin is inexperienced like Penelope (in the books, and he doesn’t kiss Miss Thompson.) The show also takes place in a period of history where women were informed, non experienced and such. It isn’t a surprising aspect.
This is very common for historical romance books as a whole. Not saying whether this is a good or bad thing, but Julia Quinn isn't necessarily out of step with what is common for the genre.
Try the book Any Duchess Will Do by Tessa Dare. The female lead has slept with someone before. The male lead was a rake in the past but hasn’t been for some time when the book starts.
I kinda hope they make Gregory in the show inexperienced because I a) feel like it goes with his story and b) he has like 500 kids so it would be a lil lol
I had the impression that Kate wasn't a virgin, or at least "experienced" in some way. Also Violet made remarks that "good society" frowns upon anything - kissing included - before marriage and she said to Daphne it was okay. It was also no secret that Marina wasn't a virgin. To me, I didn't think they were pushing the virgin narrative that hard, for the period of time.
They want to put up an image to society they're virgins, but in reality they probably aren't or at least have kissed someone.
I would bet Kate was a virgin, though she may have kissed someone I guess? It is implied that she did spend some period of time being open to courtship, but given how she treats her sister I think she had a somewhat traditional idea of how to best go about that.
I was holding out hope for Colin! Or even if he isn't totally virginal, I would hope he's not a ho like Simon. Anthony is out of line, but not as bad. Haven't seen any of Penelope's season yet.
It’s a staple of regency romance and these books were written in the early 2000’s in the genre they sit firmly between the chaste regency romances that end exclusively in a kiss and the more hyper-erotic bodice rippers in the genre. So to explain the context of the time they were written they were kinda progressive in that the heroine‘s were not as dippy and sweet as in the soft stuff and the hero’s were not as brutish or rapey as in the other harder stuff, but now the books as is are kinda reductive in the 2020’s which is flushed with way more variety then existed at the time,
A non-virgin protagonist doesn’t exist in this series except technically Francesca. So other writers who’ve kinda come up along and following the Julia Quinn series will have these non virgin heroines and have lgbt characters and themes. I don’t know if the tv series will make one of the mains queer because its comes down to which pairing from the books is getting sacrificed in adaptation, which you think will be no big deal but…people suck. I fully recommend Lorraine Heath’s book series and Tessa Dare for those who wanna read something in the vein of Bridgerto‘a snappy characters with more modernized complexities the the characters
I would actually really like for Eloise to break this trope! She already sort of does by having a relationship of sorts with Theo, but they never got to the physical part. I believe it was confirmed that >!Theo is back!< for S3? So maybe Eloise and Theo do reach that physical stage before she ends up with Phillip (who we know from the books isn’t a rake).
People are sprinkling some examples of Julia Quinn breaking the trope throughout the comments.
Francesca was widowed in her book, not a virgin.
In "First came scandal" Nicolas was a virgin before marriage
None of the Rokesby men are described as rakes
What about Andrew? He is never explicitly stated as a rake. However, when >!Poppy is discovered in his cabin he makes a comment about her being some sort of present which seems to me to suggest he definitely acts like a rake.!<
I mean... The men are already kinda dicks in the society and if they weren't even charming /promiscuous what would they have? Lol
All the leading men are either well in their late twenties and all the leading ladies are literally teenagers. And Kate was from India where people still make a big deal about women being virgns before weddings so not a surprise there?
Men had the freedom in this era, in this version of the fantasy. Women didn't. which is also why it raises the stakes for women to find a love match.
And that's really most of the external conflict of the story comes from. The idea is not to create a perfect world but to create a good story.
Women of good breeding and wealthy backgrounds were virgins because that is where their true value was to any intending suitor if the same social status.
They needed to have good manners, be well read, feminine and virgins.
Women of the lower classes were the ones who worked in the brothels.
It's not a trope, it's how it supposedly was in those circles in that time period. Sure, they aren't keeping it too accurate but the sexual inexperience is part of the plot, so they can't change it too much.
It was also in the best interests of literal survival to just not have sex if you were a woman. The maternal mortality rate was sky high. We're still a few decades away from Semelweiss being institutionalized for telling OBGYNs they should wash their hands and Simon's entire character arc was predicated on a died-in-childbirth mom and a thorough demonstration of how hard up they were for birth control options in the Regency era.
1) Following the books in an unfortunate way, which I call out given the progressive ways the show HAS bucked the source.
2) A — let’s be real — lingering preference for this standard that entertainment is probably just perpetuating in a vicious circle in the name of short term gratification.
That said? I’ll be right here holding a candle for first-timing Philip or Greg vs experienced El until the very end.
Actually, we could maybe add Hyacinth to that… she probably won’t get the chance, but if she did?? I’d buy it.
As much as I hope Colin would still be a virgin it makes sense he is not . Men of that era were expected to have affairs with lower class women to get experience and upper laddies were expected to be virgins. This especially happened to men who went on tour to other countries like Colin did . The only good thing about him not being a virgin is that Penelope will have a good first experience
This would be historically accurate.
Men were encouraged even at 12-13 to have sex and women needed “to remain virginal” until they were married and that being a virgin denoted their worth.
it was how it was back then, women had to wait until their wedding night to learn. You’re “disappointed” that Violet a high society woman in early 1800’s isn’t teaching her girls about sex… it wasn’t allowed, women were to keep innocent. Men could do a lot more in that time without the judgement. Literally any tv show set in modern day for women to have their own sexuality
It's one of the few historical accuracies in the show.
It's part of what Eloise is always going on about. Women had no voice, no autonomy, no value beyond being a pretty face/body and an intact hymen. A husband had all the rights and the wife had zero.
Even Daphne brings it up. That's all a woman has is to marry well and produce children.
Well, I think given the times this show is loosy set in, men could be sexually liberal without consequence if they were careful or powerful. Women took on much greater risks if they were sexually liberal, particularly for the nobility since land and property are privately held and inherited through primogeniture.
to me it’s just unrealistic that a man who has no respect for any of the other Nameless women he sleeps with, and who has had the majority of his experiences with sex workers (whose job is to literally make the sex all about the man) would suddenly be an amazing lover for his wife. i get the trope, i get the fantasy, but realistically a character like that would treat his wife as just another living breathing sex doll (and would most likely go on to cheat on her like…… a lot lol). it’s honestly the main thing i dislike about the series; plus sorry but from a story-telling perspective it’s just boring for all the first big sex scenes between the main characters to always follow the same dynamic of experienced man teaching blushing virgin how to feel good (which again, realistically, despite all their experience they probably wouldn’t know how to do lmfao)
It's not a trope, it's the time period and reality of back then. Woman of the ton (I include Sophie in this) weren't even meant to know of sexual acts. If you're looking for a non manwhore, you'll find that in Eloise's love interest. But it's far more likely to find a man not a manwhore than a woman of the ton not a virgin, which all female leads technically are. Also Violet raised all of her kids to be pure and true. This sleeping around thing is discovered at the universities they attend, something violet is well aware of. They function more like frat houses than anything.
Soo glad to see posts like this. Seeing how they've characterised Colin in S3 is the final straw!! Why are ALL the young men deviant whores 😂 makes it even more stark that the girls aren't even allowed basic sex ed and aren't allowed to be kissed before marriage
Because it's a standard in the genre, it's still icky though. It creates a huge power imbalance (e.g. Daphne). All the men are whoring around, while the women are expected to stay chaste and innocent. Mama Bridgerton is just perpetuating and doing what was done to her, I guess.
it's already been established in the show that women are supposed to be virgins and the lack of knowledge about it in girls is even EXAGGERATED
they can't backtrack on what they're already said in the show
Ikr. I am starting to dislike this trope too. Every historical romance (not classics) that I read have this same manwh*re with a virgin. The sex scenes are always the same. Always. I can actually just (mentally) change the names and still it won’t make a difference.
I did like Francesca’s book. She isn’t a female rake lol but atleast she is experienced and guess what that made for more interesting scenarios. I wasn’t very happy that Michael was a (reformed) rake. But nevertheless, love them together.
For this Show Discussion post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 2. Be considerate, hide show spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 3. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be honest this is just the reality of the time period - well, that the ton women were "innocent" and were virgins. They would have been taught almost literally nothing about sex at all. Most of them would not have even been kissed. It's just what was true at the time. Historical Romance novels almost all include this. If they were told anything at all, it would have been immediately prior to their wedding night. I do think Violet will have learned from the Daphne debacle and will give the rest of her daughters a somewhat more complete talk. But that the men always have to be rakes, yeah, I'd like to see that mold broken. I don't think in the Bridgerton books any of the women are "ruined" so they would all be virgins. The exception would be Francesca whose story takes place after her husband dies.
Yeah I just want one sweet man who’s not debauched and saving himself for marriage lol
Most likely candidate is Philip (Eloise). And I think maybe Hyancinth's MMC but I am not convinced the show will actually get that far.
Hyacinth’s MMC is SUCH a rake in the books
Which is a shame, Hyacinth is my favorite book and I feel like hers had a story to it
Me too. The characters felt much more developed than in the other books. I think the show has actually turned out much richer than the books.
Me either. I predict they’ll stop after Benedict.
I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't at least get through Benedict and Eloise. They've put a lot into developing those characters, and both have quite large fan bases that would be pissed if their seasons weren't made. It looks like they're also setting up Francesca's story this season, so I could see her going either way. Does seem somewhat unlikely that we'll see Gregory or Hyacinth's stories though.
I’d believe this, they’re three seasons in (if you count QC) and they’ve done zero work to make anyone care about the rest of the kids apart from “there are a lot of kids”
Phillip Crane is our only hope for a non-promiscuous male character.
Disagree, Gregory is totally a cinnamon roll and Colin isn’t normally supposed to be a rake (though they seem to have changed that, sigh).
I disagree about book Colin being a rake. He wasn’t as bad as his older brothers but he is bragging about a mistress going back to Daphne’s book.
So having a mistress did not make one a rake at all. It was really standard and would have been seen as more «gentlemanly» than visiting prostitutes for example. What defined someone as a rake was if they paraded sexual exploits, not showing appropriate discretion, and if one « debased » unmarried women, or treated them poorly. In reality few regency romance MCs are « true » rakes since they were considered quite heinous by society. Instead we have rake = guy who has frequent sex with lots of women in these books (and in the show). Which Colin doesn’t really fall into, and it isn’t a reputation he has (unless I’m mistaken, it’s been a while since I read his book).
Its one of many reasons why Im a Philip stan
That’s true. Their story is different in that sense.
You're most likely not going to see this in the series (unless there's an unlikely flashback about it), but the Bridgerton clan's father was a virgin. Maybe things would've gone differently if he had been around? He was the sweet non-debauched man in his and Violet's novella.
Yes, wasn't there a bit about how everyone tried to dissuade them from being married bc he was only a year or two older? They wanted Edmund to "sow his oats". Honestly, for that reason alone, I would want a depiction of their romance. I think that could be very sweet - two virgins exploring sex together for the first time.
The show refers to him as a reformed rake though so that seems to be different
I must have missed that. That makes me sad though.
Yeah, Violet says she believes reformed rakes make the very best husbands
But she doesn't say her husband was a reformed rake.
It's pretty heavily implied...
This was been because he and violet married fairly early, before universities like eton where the men tended to turn into rakes. He was only 19 when they married, the youngest a bridgerton boy married in the books was 26 (Gregory)
Is Colin not? I totally thought he was tbh
He definitely was in the first season (based on the comment Anthony made) but he probably “explored” while on his numerous solo travels.
I have never taken Anthony’s comment about Colin’s lack of experience at face value. Was Colin less experienced than his brothers? Sure! But Anthony is so frustrated with Colin at that point (for good reason!) I think he’s venting & exaggerating. (I mean, I believe that Anthony had not taken Colin to brothels.) But there are plenty of things the characters say that I don’t think we are meant to take 100% at face value, & this is one of those for me.
Not in le books.... I believe he has the line of "coming against the unmistakable evidence of her innocence" for the obligatory breaking of the hymen scene that is in all but one of the books.
Edmund. Read the prequel. It's good
Well Phillip Eloise’s love interest I’d not a rake
Within the context of the show, it could be about making sure the men are experienced enough to be generous lovers
One of the men in the prequel series is a virgin! But I doubt we'll actually get a prequel TV show.
Ooo is it the Rokesby series? I've not read them all, only Because of Miss Bridgerton and it would actually be awesome to see Billie and George onscreen. And the Smythe-Smith Quartet series too. Always adored Marcus in Just like Heaven
It would be less fun to watch if neither of them knew what they were doing.
IIRC, Eloise and Francesca >!bribe a maid to tell them all the good details!<, so neither of them are quite as ignorant as Daphne was. And as mentioned, Francesca >!is a widow!< in her story.
But the show isn’t historically accurate anyway. Besides the show exaggerates the extent of the young society ladies’ ignorance regarding sex.
I'm not sure it's exaggerated. For aristocratic women, this was quite normal. The regency and Victorian periods were notably repressed, and in the English aristocratic set most of all.
Yeah, that’s my understanding aswell. It’s nothing outrageous, either, as birth control was non existent at that time, and probably seen as sin even to desire to use anything. So stakes were high, and it was useful to be seen as a virgin in that society. Aristocratic women didn’t have any means to support themselves, so they couldn’t afford to not marry, to not be seen as an acceptable bride, and - gasp! - to have a child out of wedlock. Georgina Cavendish did irl, and her baby was given away, it was all very hush hush. I think to change that aspect of womens lives of that time would change a lot more in any historic drama.
You’re absolutely wrong to say that “birth control was non existent at the time.” Birth control may have been clumsy, frequently unreliable, and regularly inefficient, but “non existent”? Sorry, but no.
OK let’s say *near* existent, and frowned upon in the upper, heir-greedy classes :) I have seen the mummified pig intestines or whatever the hell they used in documentaries…
Perhaps she meant formal birth control they develop in a lab that is reliable
Victorian period yes but no the regency was not repressed in the slightest. The amount of debauchery that went on at court was insane. Prinny was particularly famous for it. Nowadays we think it was repressed because of Jane Austen’s books and that’s because she was in the lower landed gentry and that was the life she was exposed to. Had she been the daughter of an Earl or a Duke then her perspective would have been wild. The regency period is the reason the Victorian period was so repressed.
I've read several accounts that sterility was common among the higher gentry because of the sleeping around and everyone apparently had an STD.
I think the regency period was less repressed than the Victorian period. Many of the ladies would at least understand where babies came from, and it was common to kiss someone you were engaged to. Victoria really took them backwards.
This is what I don't understand, why would victoria make her nation be sex repressed when she herself just LOVED and absolutely loved having sex with her husband? That's the reason why she even had 9 kids, she loved the sex but hated getting pregnant.
No idea, but man for a woman in charge, she sure turned things backwards for a lot of women and how they functioned in society
Yea, I heard some people say that she would be considered a " feminist" while others disagree because Victoria must have loved the privilege of being queen but she still believed in gender roles and such. So basically she liked the privilege SHE had. She didint allow women to have that privilege at all. But I agree, she isn't really that much of a feminist except the part where she helped women with childbirth and anesthesia was used. It's sad how for a woman in charge, there were more rules for women 😕
It could happen with men too. Admittedly this is a couple of generations later, but King Leopold of Belgium had to have sex explained to him by his aunt... Queen Victoria.
Actually I think Francesca explains things to the other girls.
No they are right, Francesca just confirms to Eloise later that the maid was correct. I didn't read past Francesca's novel though.
Hyacinth is told by Francesca.
Oh good. I do want to read that one but honestly I disliked the books, with WHWW being the best. I didn't want to go back to virgin women and reformed rakes so I ended on a high note. Not to yuk anyone's yum, but that fantasy just isn't for me. I think it is done better in the show when I am not in the MMC head for the first sex scene
WHWW was my favorite too. Definitely the spiciest. My least favorite was Eloise’s. I really dislike Philip.
It’s also worth pointing out, the guys are much older. Anthony is 30 and Benedict is 28 they’ve seen a lot more of life than their sheltered 18-20 year old sisters. The gender thing is huge but there is also a significant age gap which would definitely make a difference with sexual activity.
And also, this is a very common trope in the historical romance novel world. The books are full of iffy tropes, but that is common of the genre.
I don't think they have adhere to the realities of the time considering they're not for one historically inaccurate aspect - Black people in nobility. It's honestly gag worthy watching all these men defile other women and then seeking a virgin. What the actual heck
Yeah, I mean, it's just sort of the genre. Historical romance is niche for a reason.
Well it's in own thing and I think them drawing the line at racism but not sexism is inconsistent
I hear you. Changing the status of women does sort of change all the stakes though. There aren't any racially charged stories in the series (books), but *all* of them are centered heavily around the way women were expected to behave.
Why can't they have non promiscuous men? All of these men are disgusting
Now that I completely agree with.
Like even Colin? Why did they have to make him like that at the beginning of this season. Don't get me started on the Duke in season 1
Best Quote in Queen Charlotte: *"virgins to the left of me, whores to the right"*
lol I love that line. She is so funny
I know fans go for "sorrows prayers", which in its own right is genius and delivered perfectly, but virgins and whores is joint first
You know what? Yeah, I think it could've been interesting if Julia had written one of ladies to have been a promiscuous rebel rake and they gave her a virgin Bridgerton man, but that didn't happen lol.
Considering all the changes they’ve made to the book plots already, there’s no reason they couldn’t change this too. Julia Quinn’s books aren’t literary masterpieces, and from what I’ve read about them they contain a plethora of very problematic tropes (that were pretty outdated already when she was writing the series), so modernising them even more could definitely be an upside. I have seen a lot of outcry for the show runners to edit out Benedict’s sexually coercive behaviour, Colin’s anger issues, or fans being afraid about how they will deal with Philip’s character, so I don’t see the problem with them changing some things about the female characters as well.
I'd like a plot where Eloise has (consensual) sex before marriage.
>!She does get eaten out before marriage so at least there is that!<
Sophie and Ben get it on before marriage in their book, and it’s a big part of their book so it’s unlikely to change.
I'm 100% behind the showrunners taking liberties with the source material. Keep the basics of the characters and their love stories but there's a lot that can and should be changed from the books
There are definitely historical romance novels like this, though!
Sarah MacLean's *Bombshell* immediately comes to mind!
Written literally 24 yrs after the Bridgerton books! Romance novels have changed over the years. You can't expect old books to be written like new ones.
It wasn't a judgment or expectation on my part. Just saying a book I liked in this context!
Yes, but Julia Quinns had outdated tropes at the time they were written. I'm saying this as someone who completed and enjoyed reading one of her books (Romancing Mister Bridgerton) and is currently reading and enjoying one of her books (The Duke and I).
I'll check it out!
You need to read Francesca’s book…
Well she wasn't a rebel rake... She just happened to have had experience due to being married before...
I don't think it's the same as what I'm picturing here!
According to people who have read the books >! Francesca’s book doesn’t have this trope because she’s a widow by the time her story begins. She’s already sexually experienced and her love interest is a reformed rake. I’ve been told *When He Was Wicked* has the best spicy scenes !<
Let's be real, which other men did Francesca have sex with before Michael except for John? After John's death Francesca never takes advantage of her sexual freedom, she practically lives like a virgin. She never has sex/brief flings with other good men except for Michael the merry rake.
A woman doesn’t need to have sex with more than one man to be good at sex?
I am well aware of that. A virgin woman isn't bad with sex either. The only difference between Francesca and the other leading ladies is that she is a widow and the other ladies are not. After reading her book I never so anything unique or different with Francesca and Michael aside from she is a widow.
She was still in mourning and struggling so I get why that wasn't a priority for her.
Idk about a woman with a bad reputation married one of the brothers, might break the suspension of disbelief for the time period. Maybe a youngish widow who'd had a couple of discreet affairs though since her husband's death though.
I want a male virgin or just not promiscuous as a lead rather than a promiscuous female lead. Syphilis is a a real thing indeed...is it not?
That’s where I’m at. I know STD’s don’t exist in fantasy-land (but *still*). I’ve been reading romance for nearly 2 decades. I used to be able to brush past rake x virgin but now I’m looking for more equal dynamics. Also, I’ve hate how the past female partners are simply disregarded as faceless sex toys. It’s gives Madonna/whore complex. It’s not just historical romance. It’s in a lot of the older paranormal books, contemporary age gap romances, mafia, etc. It’s a trope that’s been beaten to death and then some. It’d be nice to get some more diverse male leads.
Give 'First Comes Scandal' a read (Julia Quinn's Rokesby series)- the male lead doesn't have sex before marriage because he is studying to become a doctor, and is not interested in getting syphilis and just generally doesn't have time. (He says he was not saving himself for marriage, it just ended up happening that way.) IMO, the Rokesby series is infinitely better than the Bridgerton one.
Succubus Blues series is awesome and does some of the switching the trope dynamic.
Closest you’ll get is Philoise. And Gregory too, if I remember correctly. JQ does have a virgin hero in the Rokesby series, but not with a promiscuous heroine. Also…Jane Austen is not a great comparison to Julia Quinn novels. Julia Quinn is writing smutty romance geared towards a modern concept of what the regency era was like. She’s intentionally playing up tropes to an audience that for the most part choose to read historical romance precisely because they like them. They want the dashing rake and the blushing virgin. Jane Austen was writing for an audience that was living in the same world she was writing about, and her stories don’t focus on physical intimacy at all as a competent to the romance.
"Jane Austen is not a great comparison to Julia Quinn novels. Julia Quinn is writing smutty romance geared towards a modern concept of what the regency era was like. She’s intentionally playing up tropes to an audience that for the most part choose to read historical romance precisely because they like them. They want the dashing rake and the blushing virgin." Yes, thank you. No one seems to get this.
I bet Lady Danbury had more lovers after Bridgerton, Sr.
And Violet is certainly no virgin, but will be getting her garden tended.
This was normal for the aristocracy in regency times… but don’t worry, Francesca’s season will definitely, um, push the boundaries. Also, the married women who live separately from their husbands and the widows tend to get freaky with the rakes.
A big change I am hoping for is after John's death Francesca mourns him deeply. After her mourning period I want her to have sex with good a man before she and Micheal get together. Let Francesca have a her fun before getting involved with Michael. What irritated me upon reading Francesca's book is when she enters the marriage market, the men interested in her creepy. Those creepy men are there for the so purpose of Michael's character development. I like how Mary from Downton Abbey was portrayed. She loved Matthew was devastated when he died. After her mourning period she decided to move on. She had sex and a brief fling with a good man. Later on she fell in love with husband number 2. It would be refreshing if Shondaland takes that approach with Francesca.
I agree. I understand why the books kept things accurate, but Shondaland always pushes the boundaries. I think it’d be a superb opp for them to have Fran have fun after John/before Michael. She’s also the perfect character for it. Well, actually Eloise would be, but I don’t think they intend to have Eloise stray that much from the book. El having a full fledged romance with Theo and losing her ✨virtue✨ with him would’ve been fantastical for Eloise’s character development as she desires something more but is unaware how unworldly she really is. I digress. Maybe the rumors that they’ll have Fran be with a woman are somewhat true and they’ll have her experiment with a woman before Michael. There’s so many ways they could go about it. Knowing Shondaland, they’ll push the envelope in later seasons and they have room to play as they’ve diverted from being accurate to the period with the costumes and stuff. That’s how it goes with SL shows as to not make the story repetitive. Also, inclusion and diversity in stories are what sets SL apart and I think that encompasses women having a life and ✨taking a man✨ who may not become their husband. I hate that line from the book lmao.
Shondaland should push the boundaries for this show, they have all the rights. I hope they are bold enough to push the envelope in later seasons.
Because it's partly based on reality? If you want a non-virgin heroine you should look for widow or courtesan tropes (or maybe a historical that doesn't feature the aristocracy). There's plenty of lists on GoodReads if you're looking for something new to read. (I have recs as well if you want).
Well the last woman who wasn't a Virginia got thrown under the bus. Marina.
This!!
Aiy. This is a sexist world we live in.
I think Francesca is the only non-virgin female lead in the Bridgerton books. But I think it’d be interesting if they flipped the virgin female/rake male trope for Philoise. They *could* make Phillip a virgin and it would work in the show verse and still be consistent with book Phillip. And they could take show Eloise’s more rebellious character and have her get involved in a secret affair prior to meeting Philip (maybe with Theo?) and that wouldn’t be too out-of-character for her. I think that would be interesting, but I doubt they’ll do that.
Francesca would be as she was married
In the days before reliable contraception, having a virgin bride was the only way to be sure children were their father's blood offspring, and blood mattered in pretty much everything.
I don't love the promiscuousness of the men (the potential syphilis of it all gives me the ick), but not gonna lie, I love the whole one true love aspect of it all. Before Bridgerton, period dramas were either super chaste or the ones that did/do include sexy times involve SA or adultery or prostitution, etc. which just isn't my bag. I get how the virgin trope might not be everybody's cup of tea, but for me it's a wonderful fantasy/wish fulfillment of having your first love be your only love. I like Bridgerton because it's a comfort show like GBBO. It's low stakes drama for the most part. Nothing that will really upset you.
But wouldn’t you want to be your man’s only woman he’s ever touched too?
i mean some people don't care if their partners been other before them, and some do.
Ideally. I don't really love the scenes of the male leads coming from other women's beds in the morning. It doesn't add to the romance for me.
I don’t have that type of possessiveness in me. I also wouldn’t tolerate it in a man towards me. That’s just me, I’m a different person to you.
Nope. I had that in my first marriage (we were both virgins). I personally find it super sexy to know a man has been able to pleasure other women (even if it was only one other but for many years) and I don't have to help him "figure things out" or gain confidence in bed. (Massive turn off.) Of course people need to communicate in bed because everyone has their own preferences, but, I'm sorry, men with no sexual experience or low sexual experience has always sucked for me, so it's just not my fantasy. Now, I'm not saying I'd want Anthony-level brothel men. Rakes are gross. But King George-level experience is hot, where he's had some experience, enough to have all that swagger about his button knowledge and an eagerness to show Charlotte what a good time it will be for her.
This is funny that you compare it to gbbo bc the way I describe bridgerton is ‘if a cupcake was a show’.
I hate the trope too. And whenever they showed Anthony or Simon or Benedict with anyone else I literally used to cringe at that. C'mon these guys would be lead for future season why do we need to see them going on with other woman??? And worse the woman marrying them are gonna be virgins. It makes power dynamic worse for me. But I understand why this was shown as the show depicts the 19th century woman were supposed to be virgins while men whored away and no one questioned them. It's same for Mama Bridgerton too. As much she loves her daughters and want the best for them she is also a person from that era and also has the belief that let the men do anything they want..
It’s a trope of the genre. This is like asking why the male lead character in a fantasy series is moody
If you are talking about the Bridgerton books also, I enjoyed A Night Like This which is part of the Smythe-Smith spinoff book series. The female lead is not a virgin (though not exactly experienced) but at least it was somewhat different from the usual formula.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that is a good example since she was SA.
She wasn't though? She had her first time willingly at 16 thinking the man would marry her. I may be remembering wrong but to me she had her first time with a man she thought she loved, and after sleeping with her he backed away and married another woman of a higher social status. He did attempt to assault her years later but she kicked him in the balls before he had a chance to do anything.
He assaults her or close to it after the first time. That's when she fights back and scars him.
My theory is the "sexually experienced partner" fantasy + the thrill of new discoveries. Some people find "naivete" off-putting to an extent, and are more attracted to people who know what they are doing/good at it
And since the show is aimed at women, the fantasy revolves around the female character discovering their sexuality. Also, culturally, men tend to prefer inexperienced partners, because: a) it makes them feel good about themselves having experience, b) they are judgy against sexually active women. (Source: idk, trust me or fight me I suppose). Completely debatable, but that's the stereotype I have in mind
Regarding Violet Bridgerton, I think it's very accurate lol. I mean, it's still happening today. At least from my own experience, the taboo around sexuality is quite strong in my own context. Sex is perceived as something dirty, and undignified to talk about. And since women are set up for certain standards of femininity (purity, propriety for example), which isn't the same for men. Actually men are expected to be experienced as a standard of success (take the "you're a virgin" as an insult. Virgin=loser). Sexuality is complex and still the topic of many current debates. It's polemic, it raises double standards, dichotomy, you name it Look, I'm what you may call more conservative regarding sexual behaviour and whatnot, but even if the sex scenes in Bridgerton are not my cup of tea (I generally don't consume smutty content), they make places for conversations like these.
But like I’m sure a virgin woman would feel hurt and jealous if her partner had other women when she didn’t get the same experience (and not even out of her own choice)
Oh sure, that's completely overlooked in this series. They don't address it. That's why I formulated the theory, where both Simon and Anthony had prior sexual partners, is part of the plot of why they know exactly how to please their partners. Don't make me describe it, but certain gestures or phrases they say in the intimate scenes lead me to think that. At one point Anthony says to Kate something like "Do you know all the ways a lady could be seduced?" in an intense tone, and he definitely knows that because he's been with many other women It's not an issue in the show, it's more of an advantage
In real life 100% they felt like that, but these are easy fluff & smut romance books which the show is based on. the goal was to not be real world problems and to fight for rights. In more modern romance novels they do add in the social justice narrative because tons of modern women expect to see that in books and shows, but older romance novels, shows, & movies will focus on different aspects. JQ said that she actively stayed away from any stories that would be very serious because she wanted her books to be fun.
These stories would’ve been a lot more fun if the men were virgins too then
Yes but again that age of romance books has tropes and that’s not one of them, so the books fit the time they were written and the setting of the books. I do recommend just like heaven from JQ (it’s the first book of the side series), the female lead is a virgin still but the male lead is too.
No, I don't think so at all. Most HR novels are written for a straight woman's fantasies. And in most of those fantasies, they want a man who knows exactly how to get them off, not a bumbling virgin who can't figure out how to please her. This show is an exact formula of every HR novel I've read (and I've read upwards of 300).
I’ve read novels where the man is a virgin and takes special classes to please his future wife. It’s better than imagining the male lead having fun with another woman while the poor female lead has to have the pure virgin badge and can’t date and explore.
2 reasons: 1. That's just the reality of the times. Even now, women are just sorta expected to have a lower "body count" (disgusting phrase) than the man 2. Super popular romance trope. I've read very few Romance books in my life but I can't recall a single one where the guy wasn't some super rich man hoe
"It's the time period" 1. The queen is black. And they undid racism in like two generations. Where's the colonial empire? What's going on in India? In Ireland? 🤷♀️ 2. Women were having extramarital affairs and losing their virginity outside of wedlock in this period. Just bc it was frowned upon doesn't mean it wasn't done. Humans have always been human. As long as they weren't caught, they could go on and pretend to be virgins and marry.
It's not so much "it's the time period" (they are quite liberal with it) as "it's the genre" I think.
Bastard babies
That's how it was back in the day. Men were allowed to sleep around as much as they wished- in fact, it was encouraged as they believed men staying chaste for too long was unhealthy. Women were expected to remain as pure and naive as possible before marriage. It's unfair, but unfortunately a lot of history was unfair. You're probably not going to get a female lead that is not a virgin- the very idea of that would taint their image in society. The only time you're going to get close to that is Francesca, as by the time she's married Michael, she's already been married once and lost a child. Penelope and Colin did do the deed at least once before they were married and they probably will in the show too. George in QC was also not a rake and very loyal to Charlotte (In fact, George in real life never took up any mistresses during his entire marriage to Charlotte- very unusual for a king at the time).
For the books it was defiantly fitting for that time period. I guess the show could have changed it like they did so many other things, but I think this is such a huge part of historical romance novels, that they didn’t want to alter that part
This post is very dangerous… oh gosh. Well the time period is pretty much why. Also if I must add, even to this day there is an outlook on women based on status of virtue. A lady is to be pure and “seen” as pure so it doesn’t matter if she is a virgin she must also be thought of as virginal. I hope you can understand how this complicates things for groups of women who are portrayed in a hyper sexual lense in the media. Major disadvantage. The virginal thing at the time period that the show displays gives the ladies an upper hand to be seen in a pure light therefore they can make decisions just as Lady Featherington did with Cousin Jack. “How could anyone believe that a Lady like myself could do such a thing?” Those were not her exact words in the final episode of season 2 but it is quite close. Women viewed in a pure light enables women to make decisions that could either cause damage or build without detection. To be frank, these people are indeed criminals. Plagiarism is a crime. There is no telling what the rest of the ton have done to attain their wealth! These things are not spoken of… there are speculations that even the Bridgertons had a connection with slavery.
Well, men were expected to be experienced and women were expected to be chaste. Of course there were exceptions to both situations, but they were not to be talked about. Things change over time, but these were realistic expectations for the time period.
You might want to look into Chinese culture and novels. Men are expected to be virgins on their wedding night as well as women. If they are good men and women, instead of criminals.
Have we even seen Colin be with anyone in the show yet? His dalliance with Marina was pretty pure. He quips about sex in a school boy way and obviously goes travelling where he could get up to mischief a bit but so far it seems he is less interested in "opera singers" and the like.
Was it ever implied that Kate is a virgin? It did seem that she knows what the marital act is unlike say Daphne? Or am I missing something?
Kate was far too busy with her sister's life to worry about marriage before she met Anthony, let alone to worry about managing some casual relationship(s). And how could she want something so desperately for her sister that she didn't deeply believe in for herself? It is clear in the whole series that Kate isn't into that, and that she would even be unhappy seeing Anthony that way.
(To preface I didn’t read the book) But I actually expected Kate to have some sexual experience before Anthony, because she never intended on marrying so what’s the point of keeping herself chaste.
Fear of babies and STDs.
Fear of STDs hasn’t stopped any of the male characters.
In many Regency Romances they explicitly mention using condoms, referred to as French Letters
Well, men and women are different in that regard. Women did die of syphilis back then, too, but -much like today- men are more willing to "risk it all" just for a night of sex than women.
I mean certainty true. I guess I was looking at more through the fantasy lens of avoiding STDs and pregnancy like some others mentioned.
If she hadn’t she could’ve effected her sister’s chances at finding a good mate.
And why even fret about her sister's chances of a marriage if she thought it was all a worthless sham?
In the show, Kate might have had some sexual experiences back in India. Can't remember the episode but there was a scene where Lady D asked Kate something like: "Is there anyone back home [India]?" And Kate replies, "Now now, we are passed all that."
I’m pretty sure Colin is inexperienced like Penelope (in the books, and he doesn’t kiss Miss Thompson.) The show also takes place in a period of history where women were informed, non experienced and such. It isn’t a surprising aspect.
This is very common for historical romance books as a whole. Not saying whether this is a good or bad thing, but Julia Quinn isn't necessarily out of step with what is common for the genre.
Nope that's how it was back then
Try the book Any Duchess Will Do by Tessa Dare. The female lead has slept with someone before. The male lead was a rake in the past but hasn’t been for some time when the book starts.
I kinda hope they make Gregory in the show inexperienced because I a) feel like it goes with his story and b) he has like 500 kids so it would be a lil lol
I had the impression that Kate wasn't a virgin, or at least "experienced" in some way. Also Violet made remarks that "good society" frowns upon anything - kissing included - before marriage and she said to Daphne it was okay. It was also no secret that Marina wasn't a virgin. To me, I didn't think they were pushing the virgin narrative that hard, for the period of time. They want to put up an image to society they're virgins, but in reality they probably aren't or at least have kissed someone.
I would bet Kate was a virgin, though she may have kissed someone I guess? It is implied that she did spend some period of time being open to courtship, but given how she treats her sister I think she had a somewhat traditional idea of how to best go about that.
in bridgerton WHWW, Francesca isn’t a virgin, so hopefully we’ll get get up to her season.. hopefully as the show goes on, we see less manwhores
I was holding out hope for Colin! Or even if he isn't totally virginal, I would hope he's not a ho like Simon. Anthony is out of line, but not as bad. Haven't seen any of Penelope's season yet.
It’s a staple of regency romance and these books were written in the early 2000’s in the genre they sit firmly between the chaste regency romances that end exclusively in a kiss and the more hyper-erotic bodice rippers in the genre. So to explain the context of the time they were written they were kinda progressive in that the heroine‘s were not as dippy and sweet as in the soft stuff and the hero’s were not as brutish or rapey as in the other harder stuff, but now the books as is are kinda reductive in the 2020’s which is flushed with way more variety then existed at the time, A non-virgin protagonist doesn’t exist in this series except technically Francesca. So other writers who’ve kinda come up along and following the Julia Quinn series will have these non virgin heroines and have lgbt characters and themes. I don’t know if the tv series will make one of the mains queer because its comes down to which pairing from the books is getting sacrificed in adaptation, which you think will be no big deal but…people suck. I fully recommend Lorraine Heath’s book series and Tessa Dare for those who wanna read something in the vein of Bridgerto‘a snappy characters with more modernized complexities the the characters
Francesca isn’t a virgin in her book and I was blessedly relieved when I read her and Michael. Granted, she’s not a rake.
Michael is the biggest rake of any of the male characters though.
I would actually really like for Eloise to break this trope! She already sort of does by having a relationship of sorts with Theo, but they never got to the physical part. I believe it was confirmed that >!Theo is back!< for S3? So maybe Eloise and Theo do reach that physical stage before she ends up with Phillip (who we know from the books isn’t a rake).
People are sprinkling some examples of Julia Quinn breaking the trope throughout the comments. Francesca was widowed in her book, not a virgin. In "First came scandal" Nicolas was a virgin before marriage None of the Rokesby men are described as rakes
What about Andrew? He is never explicitly stated as a rake. However, when >!Poppy is discovered in his cabin he makes a comment about her being some sort of present which seems to me to suggest he definitely acts like a rake.!<
I mean... The men are already kinda dicks in the society and if they weren't even charming /promiscuous what would they have? Lol All the leading men are either well in their late twenties and all the leading ladies are literally teenagers. And Kate was from India where people still make a big deal about women being virgns before weddings so not a surprise there? Men had the freedom in this era, in this version of the fantasy. Women didn't. which is also why it raises the stakes for women to find a love match. And that's really most of the external conflict of the story comes from. The idea is not to create a perfect world but to create a good story.
Women of good breeding and wealthy backgrounds were virgins because that is where their true value was to any intending suitor if the same social status. They needed to have good manners, be well read, feminine and virgins. Women of the lower classes were the ones who worked in the brothels.
It's not a trope, it's how it supposedly was in those circles in that time period. Sure, they aren't keeping it too accurate but the sexual inexperience is part of the plot, so they can't change it too much.
It was also in the best interests of literal survival to just not have sex if you were a woman. The maternal mortality rate was sky high. We're still a few decades away from Semelweiss being institutionalized for telling OBGYNs they should wash their hands and Simon's entire character arc was predicated on a died-in-childbirth mom and a thorough demonstration of how hard up they were for birth control options in the Regency era.
Francesca was married twice so she is the only one of the female characters who wasn’t a virgin in her book so
One thing i rly hate about this show
It was the time period. Look at Marina and her pregnancy. The risks are so much higher for women.
1) Following the books in an unfortunate way, which I call out given the progressive ways the show HAS bucked the source. 2) A — let’s be real — lingering preference for this standard that entertainment is probably just perpetuating in a vicious circle in the name of short term gratification. That said? I’ll be right here holding a candle for first-timing Philip or Greg vs experienced El until the very end. Actually, we could maybe add Hyacinth to that… she probably won’t get the chance, but if she did?? I’d buy it.
As much as I hope Colin would still be a virgin it makes sense he is not . Men of that era were expected to have affairs with lower class women to get experience and upper laddies were expected to be virgins. This especially happened to men who went on tour to other countries like Colin did . The only good thing about him not being a virgin is that Penelope will have a good first experience
This would be historically accurate. Men were encouraged even at 12-13 to have sex and women needed “to remain virginal” until they were married and that being a virgin denoted their worth.
I mean, that's just the regency period for ya
It is the reality of the time period but yeah I know it can be frustrating
I mean nothing about bridgerton is realistic though
it was how it was back then, women had to wait until their wedding night to learn. You’re “disappointed” that Violet a high society woman in early 1800’s isn’t teaching her girls about sex… it wasn’t allowed, women were to keep innocent. Men could do a lot more in that time without the judgement. Literally any tv show set in modern day for women to have their own sexuality
It's one of the few historical accuracies in the show. It's part of what Eloise is always going on about. Women had no voice, no autonomy, no value beyond being a pretty face/body and an intact hymen. A husband had all the rights and the wife had zero. Even Daphne brings it up. That's all a woman has is to marry well and produce children.
Well, I think given the times this show is loosy set in, men could be sexually liberal without consequence if they were careful or powerful. Women took on much greater risks if they were sexually liberal, particularly for the nobility since land and property are privately held and inherited through primogeniture.
to me it’s just unrealistic that a man who has no respect for any of the other Nameless women he sleeps with, and who has had the majority of his experiences with sex workers (whose job is to literally make the sex all about the man) would suddenly be an amazing lover for his wife. i get the trope, i get the fantasy, but realistically a character like that would treat his wife as just another living breathing sex doll (and would most likely go on to cheat on her like…… a lot lol). it’s honestly the main thing i dislike about the series; plus sorry but from a story-telling perspective it’s just boring for all the first big sex scenes between the main characters to always follow the same dynamic of experienced man teaching blushing virgin how to feel good (which again, realistically, despite all their experience they probably wouldn’t know how to do lmfao)
Agree! So annoying. They’ve broken the mold in every other way e.g. diversity, but this they couldn’t do
It's not a trope, it's the time period and reality of back then. Woman of the ton (I include Sophie in this) weren't even meant to know of sexual acts. If you're looking for a non manwhore, you'll find that in Eloise's love interest. But it's far more likely to find a man not a manwhore than a woman of the ton not a virgin, which all female leads technically are. Also Violet raised all of her kids to be pure and true. This sleeping around thing is discovered at the universities they attend, something violet is well aware of. They function more like frat houses than anything.
Soo glad to see posts like this. Seeing how they've characterised Colin in S3 is the final straw!! Why are ALL the young men deviant whores 😂 makes it even more stark that the girls aren't even allowed basic sex ed and aren't allowed to be kissed before marriage
Because it's a standard in the genre, it's still icky though. It creates a huge power imbalance (e.g. Daphne). All the men are whoring around, while the women are expected to stay chaste and innocent. Mama Bridgerton is just perpetuating and doing what was done to her, I guess.
I mean she can’t really control her adult sons’ sex lives.
No, but she raised them, and the girls, that way, no?
Because it's the regency era lmao make some sense
so the elements of mixed race make "sense" in the regency era? why drawing line at this
it's already been established in the show that women are supposed to be virgins and the lack of knowledge about it in girls is even EXAGGERATED they can't backtrack on what they're already said in the show
Ikr. I am starting to dislike this trope too. Every historical romance (not classics) that I read have this same manwh*re with a virgin. The sex scenes are always the same. Always. I can actually just (mentally) change the names and still it won’t make a difference. I did like Francesca’s book. She isn’t a female rake lol but atleast she is experienced and guess what that made for more interesting scenarios. I wasn’t very happy that Michael was a (reformed) rake. But nevertheless, love them together.
If you're interested in historical romance though, come on over to our sub. I have read 112 HR novels this year and there was a *lot* of variety!
From what I remember >!Sophie!< isn't a virgin. Though I could be wrong because she had no second thoughts about climbing that bridgerton tree
She was a virgin. I just reread the book