MovieChat Forums > Mona Lisa Smile (2003) Discussion > 'Companion' vs. Contraception

'Companion' vs. Contraception


Given the period of time which Mona Lisa Smile is supposed to represent--the 1950's--I find it to be somewhat confusing that the school nurse's sexual preferences are far-widely more accepted than, say, her doling out of birth control devices. Would it not be fair to say that either lifestyle would threaten "the roles that they were born to play," as neither promotes the traditional "family values" that everyone holds so dear?

reply

The nurse being lesbian wasn't accepted. Notice that Nancy Abbey can't say the word "partner", but "companion". Besides, I guess they didn't have any real proof of it.

Birth Control devices being given by the school staff meant that the school aproved sex before marriage and birth control in general. But while the nurse was quiet, no problem.

-- gamma-normids --
all opinions reserved

reply

Could turn a blind eye to the nurse's private behavior (it was, I'm assuming discrete and behind closed doors) with a wink wink nudge nudge "ya know what I mean?" attitude if there was no real proof.

The sale and distribution of contraceptive devices was illegal in many states, and the mere existence of the device in someone's possession was proof of the crime. I don't know about Mass, but in neighboring Connecticut, it was illegal for married couples to purchase contraceptives until the Griswold vs Connecticut decision of the USSC in 1965, a decision that some groups, even today, feel should be revisited and overturned.

dl

reply

Wellesley was founded in 1870. It's an all female college. It's in New England. My guess is these two were not the first lesbian couple employed at Wellesley

reply

Thanks to PFLAG that sort of thing is much more widely accepted. Hollywood engineers have promoted and adopted the lifestyle.

They will have to answer for their decisions.S o b e rThe dead one was in the pool.

reply

I assume "will have to answer" means you think they will go to hell. If God punishes people for being gay, then he is unjust. After all HE was the one who designed the human body, and therefore HE is responsible for those bodies which find same-sex more attractive than opposite-sex. He is the engineer, and he is responsible when his designs "go awry".

reply