WWWBoard/LT

Renaissance Forum   Humanities & Classics 1002

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

In Reply to: In the Name of the Rose posted by Nikki Davis on December 15, 1998 at 12:33:45:

Can anybody let this issue go? I hope I'm not adding fuel to the fire, but the sex scene in the movie was put in there solely to show Edgil's sexual curiosity. It's not degrading to women in general, just to her. I don't know if it's relaistic that there was a girl going around the monestary trading sex for food or not. I don't know enough about the time or monks in general to jump to any conclusions. Nobody should jump to any conclusions about the girl, either. We never see her do anything sexual with anybody else, but everyone on this class webpage seems to think that she was just a girl that the monks used to sex whenever they wanted and then threw her drumstick or something when they were done with her. While it is very apparent that the girl is poor, maybe she is just sexually curious too, and chose a young monk she thought was cute to have new experience. I'm not saying that's what happpend, but I'm just throwing out a new perspective for people to look at. Nobody knows who she is or what her life is like for sure. Nobody should be offended by sex in movies, because that's what they are-MOVIES. Back then, most women were not treated equal and if it;s ok to all the feminists, sometimes a producer should be able to show what life was like back then, ugly as it may be, without a bunch of people getting upset about it. Maybe she had to do it for food, maybe she didn't, maybe she was taught ot do it, maybe she just liked it. We'll never know-it was a character in a movie and let's put this issue to rest.

Follow Ups:

POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:

RESPONSE:
: Can anybody let this issue go? I hope I'm not adding fuel to the fire, but the sex scene in the movie was put in there solely to show Edgil's sexual curiosity. It's not degrading to women in general, just to her. I don't know if it's relaistic that there was a girl going around the monestary trading sex for food or not. I don't know enough about the time or monks in general to jump to any conclusions. Nobody should jump to any conclusions about the girl, either. We never see her do anything sexual with anybody else, but everyone on this class webpage seems to think that she was just a girl that the monks used to sex whenever they wanted and then threw her drumstick or something when they were done with her. While it is very apparent that the girl is poor, maybe she is just sexually curious too, and chose a young monk she thought was cute to have new experience. I'm not saying that's what happpend, but I'm just throwing out a new perspective for people to look at. Nobody knows who she is or what her life is like for sure. Nobody should be offended by sex in movies, because that's what they are-MOVIES. Back then, most women were not treated equal and if it;s ok to all the feminists, sometimes a producer should be able to show what life was like back then, ugly as it may be, without a bunch of people getting upset about it. Maybe she had to do it for food, maybe she didn't, maybe she was taught ot do it, maybe she just liked it. We'll never know-it was a character in a movie and let's put this issue to rest.

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:

---

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

---

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

---

 

v 1.1 is made possbile by:

Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources.  © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth.  © 1998 Tom Bacig.