Aren't they cousins?
Are the two young lovers cousins? If so, doesn't that make this entire premise incredibly creepy? Thoughts on this?:
shareWhile watching this today I thought the whole time they were brother and sister until they started talking about the father at night...I was freaked out by the whole thing until then.
shareYes, they are cousins. Exactly how close of cousins we don't know.* I am surprised every time by people who think that they are brother and sister. Child Emmeline very clearly refers to Arthur Lestrange as "Uncle Arthur" while Child Richard just as clearly calls him "Father." Later in the movie Richard refers to him as "my father" while Emmeline refers to him as "your father." There is never even the slightest suggestion that they are siblings.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
* First cousins? Second cousins? Third cousins twice removed? We are never told.
And yes, I know in the book they are first cousins. This doesn't bother me (I personally don't feel that cousins count as incest), and marriage between first cousins was fairly common in the time in which the movie was set. But if it bothers you, remind yourself that there are enough differences between book and movie that if you want them to be only sorta-kinda cousins, then they can be.
[deleted]
I wear T-shirts and ride the bus and sing (badly) at karaoke. I'm about sick of the Civil freaking War, which ended before anybody alive today was conceived. I wish Southerners would stop acting like it happened yesterday, as if they have to rationalize their own personal actions in it or something.
<pulls on flame-proof seifuku while waiting for all the good ol' boys to start shrieking>
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
Hey, don't blame we southerners. All our ancestors wanted was their independence. You stupid Yankees and your president who looks like a fish, Lincoln, are responsible for murdering thousands of southerners who wanted nothing more than to be left alone.
shareIt's good to see ignorance prevailing in forums around the world...
There's no more room in hell...
I've read this entire thread and it seems to me what people are missing when they're defending what Richard and Em did or did not know is the fact that those people who are irked aren't necessarily criticizing the characters as much as they're questioning the writer's decisions.
At least, that's my case.
I know about cousin marriage during that time being viewed as legitimate (not quite the ultimate option, but certainly not a moral and social taboo), but that doesn't change my questions when it comes to the author. He didn't live back then when he wrote that book.
And for the record, some cultures frowned upon cousin marriages even back then.
As for the writer's decision to make the children cousins, I suppose it was both for practical reasons (how did they get there together? How would they be familiar with the more intimate details of each other's lives, like Em's being an orphan? etc...) but mainly it struck me as part of the "Paradise found / Paradise lost" theme of the book/movie, where we were all one big family.
I get it, and I don't judge the characters, but the author's decision still irks me some. But, given the literary context, I'm not gonna be up in arms about it either, nor would it stop me from enjoying the movie and it's themes.
I used to have a , but damnit do I want a !share
Why would the author's choice to make them cousins "irk" you? Writing is a form of art. I love when stupid people can't conceive of the idea that someone can write/paint/draw/sing something that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their own desires. And even if it is, who cares? As long as no one is out there molesting their relatives and/or inbreeding, why should you give the slightest bit of thought to what someone else is thinking?
It's also stupid to think that because the story wasn't written during a time where marrying your cousin was accepted that we should all disregard the fact that that's how it was back then for the sake of not being "irked." People are doing things in the world today that's a lot worse than cousins having consensual sex.
If you're going to analyze an author based on his/her creativity, then I suggest you not read any fictional stories.
The future is just a f-ing concept that we use to avoid being alive today.
I love when stupid people can't conceive of the idea that...
That's right, if anyone has an opinion different to yours, they surely are stupid. Now there's intelligent thinking for sure.
As long as no one is out there molesting their relatives and/or inbreeding
Yeah, that's not happening in our world at all. Good on you for noticing! There are no cases of sexual molestation within the family anywhere in the world. I'm so glad you pointed that one out and how my concern is out of touch with reality. What would I have done without you?
a lot worse than cousins having consensual sex
The fact that you think incest can be consensual irks me as well. And you can't use the "artistic lisence" claim for your comment.
As for the artistic lisence claim, I never said the guy didn't have the right to do whatever he wants in his book. But I have the right to be irked by it. And I am. And I probably wouldn't have been if there was any indication within the piece that there's the sense that it's wrong, but there isn't. On the contrary, the incestual relationship is equated with lost paradise, meaning it's as right as any person can hope to be. And that's irksome!
As for your suggestion, you can go stuff it. My love of fiction doesn't stand in contrast with my dislike for certain fictional pieces and your generalization is out of place.
"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"share
Incest can be consensual. That doesn't mean that it's RIGHT, but things can be both wrong and consensual.
How would Richard and Emmeline, who had never heard of incest or sex or love-making or any of the rest of it, have possibly thought that what they were doing was wrong, EVEN IF IT WAS?
Anyhoo, as has been pointed out a g'zillion times: cousins getting married was no big deal when the book was written, was no big deal when the book was set, and is still legal today in much of the world, including a lot of the industrialized West.
Finally, if it irks you that much, then assume that they weren't really cousins after all. It's possible; Emmeline could have been adopted by Richard's aunt.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
Incest can be consensual
In certain cases, we understand that consent cannot truly be given because even if the person thinks they are consenting, they are actually found in a situation where saying 'no' is not a real possibility (again, whether they are aware of this or not). Incest, minors and employees being hit on by their boss are such cases. It is not right and it CANNOT be consensual.
Anyhoo, as has been pointed out a g'zillion times: cousins getting married was no big deal when the book was written, was no big deal when the book was set, and is still legal today in much of the world, including a lot of the industrialized West.
And that makes it right? Social norms have a tendency to be a really bad way to argue that something that's wrong is actually right.
Finally, if it irks you that much, then assume that they weren't really cousins after all.
Why? I don't have any reasons to be in denial. I can say that the author's original vision irks me, yet appreciate what he wanted to say about the evils of modern society. I think my being irked isn't what's out of place here. The question is, why aren't you? Why are you so insistent on defending this vision of incest being pure and right?
"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"share
"Incest .... are such cases. It is not right"
Right
"...and it CANNOT be consensual."
Wrong
Two adult siblings agreeing to have sex can certainly be consentual, no discussion.
Cousins marrying is NOT incest and never has been. Incest is sex between immediate family members. It is estimated 20 percent of the worlds marriages are between cousins, and cousins can reproduce children with basically no more risk of birth defects then anyone else.
There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with cousins being intimate or even marrying. It "irks" you for no more reason than your cultural bias. Tell me, why is cousins marrying or becoming intimate "not right"? What is wrong with it other than it doesn't fit your cultural preconceptions?
[deleted]
Big deal.
First off -- neither of them had any clue that what they were doing was "wrong" (at least to some people) ... and in virtually all societies, at that time, it was perfectly acceptable to marry your cousin. It's one of the ways fortunes and inheritances were preserved.
It's also possible they were not blood-related, though perhaps legally cousins. The death rates back then from childbirth were astronomical compared to now -- as were the death rates in children in general. Adoptions -- formal or informal -- were far more common, and just because someone was raised by a person was far from any guarantee that they had any blood relationship.
The argument is basically silly. Surely people have more significant issues to pick over.
Maybe because incest is just a bit messed up, not to mention physically unhealthy?
http://www.formspring.me/LaGamine
[deleted]
http://images.wikia.com/glee/images/6/62/Mean_girls_eww_why.gif
We're collecting dust, but our love's enough.
He didn't live back then when he wrote that book.The book came out in 1908 (interestingly enough, the same year as the Tunguska Event).
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough. share
Why is that interesting?
shareBecause both are still remembered today.
-
What If Rick James had Become the Hulk?
http://tinyurl.com/59hfwy
I think its interesting
shareI haven't read the book nor seen the movie, but if this statement is true...
"like Em's being an orphan?"
...then why the hell is this discussion even taking place?!? They would only be cousins in name, not in blood, thus nullifying the whole incest-problem...
She's an orphan because her parents died. Her parents would have been Richard's aunt and uncle. She was probably being raised by her uncle now.
shareAnd for the record some Cultures have no problem with it...A lot of
Royal lines were interbred a lot closer than Cousins..Anyway who cares...If someone wants to do their Cousin its their business not mine...I find same sex couples more appalling, but that's just me..In the end it is their lifestyle choice..Also, even tho the author lived now, he was writing about the past..It was VERY common to marry Cousins..I know as I have been a genealogist for 35 years or so, and the records bear it out..
You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..
Better Living Thru Chemistry
@gallileo60 Excuse me, you find same sex couples more apalling then cousins having a relationship??? That's twisted!
shareI think its pretty twisted for 2 dudes to be together..So what...you are entitled to your opinion as am i..
You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..
Better Living Thru Chemistry
[deleted]