Two answers for the price of one...
Posted by Greg on April 14, 1998 at 22:03:06:
In response to But why?, written by P. Bingham on April 13, 1998 at 23:32:00
...I would think that they'd be expected to show unstudied affection and what's wrong with a peal of fresh giggles backstage? The only reason that I can think of for them not to be kissing outside of the church on their wedding day would be if the bride were, uh, already showing the effects of their affection. (as Fanny Brice would tell you in Funny Girl). And even then, as previous posts will tell you Inot so very far down), that was not so unpopular either. What say you to that?
Let me try to reiterate my perspective on this, and try to explain what you seemed to have been puzzled by in my other post above. I'm an American engineer who happens to be fascinated by Austen, so I certainly don't bring any expertise to the question. I just somehow get the impression that our late 20th century styles of affection look different than those of the culture in question: Sex, of course, has been around for a lot longer than 200 years(that much I know ;o) ), and I have no doubt that it would be wrong to characterize the changes in attitudes to be a straight line from prudishness to debauchery. But isn't this fascination for the stereotypical kissing embrace we always see in the movies a little bit of the product of the movies themselves(post Pepsodent and Ultrabright etc., era, shall we say)? And even if I'm wrong about that, I remain unconvinced that the Knightley's, for example, would so casually kiss one another in front of their neighbors, even on their wedding day.
- greetings everyone. P. Bingham 03:07:57 4/16/98 (3)
- the kiss! P. Bingham 22:54:47 4/14/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.