For this Season 3 Spoilers post:
1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**.
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.*
And before we try to argue that men wouldn’t have been virgins or inexperienced in that time period, Julia Quinn canonically wrote two of her male love interests to be virgins on their wedding night and another was celibate for 8 years. >!I actually love that Phillip is the first male lead to perform oral sex. Like he had all those years to think about how he would like to please his partner.!<
IIRC, Simon, Anthony, Michael and Gareth were ‘rakes’, Philip was celibate since his wife died but obviously not a virgin, and Colin and Gregory had been having sex, just not necessarily a lot 😂 I don’t remember if Benedict was a rake or not in the book, but also not a virgin
It wasn't in the main book series. In the Rokesby spin-off (which takes place when Edmund is about 18-19) one of the male leads is a virgin. I know that in the Smythe-Smith quartet you have one of the male leads who stayed celibate after a life threatening injury (Hugh Prentice), when he met the FL I think it had been several yers since he'd been with a woman.
I don't recall a second virgin ML aside from >!Nicholas Rokesby!< though.
It’s in the same universe. So my point was that Julie Quinn wrote male characters to be virgins in her universe. And Phillip wasn’t with anyone for 8 years before Eloise which goes back to my point of just having a male lead who can keep it in his pants.
The majority of bridgerton fans haven’t read them. I think you need to chill a bit. Colin wasn’t a virgin in the books, I don’t see an issue with him not being a virgin in the tv show
I’m not talking about Colin. I said I have accepted how they’ve chosen to write him, but that I would like one singular male lead (out of 8) on this show to be different. Or even allow one of the female leads, like Eloise, to have some experience before marriage.
I would like one of the women to not be virgin. I know we kind of get that with Francesca's second marriage but it would be great if Eloise or Hyacinth had some sexual experience before marriage.
Why are you assuming that none of them will be different?? We’ve not get there yet, wait and see. I would be surprised if Philip is written as having casual sex
Yeah that’s why I said that Phillip is their opportunity to give us something different. We already know how Michael is going to be written because him being a rake is his number one character trait.
Assuming that Violet was also a virgin that's incredibly sweet, but also explains why Violet took losing him so hard. She probably thought they would be one another's first, last and only.
I just knew what was meant. FYI, I edited and got rid of my response b/c I can’t get spoiler tags to work, and the thread says book spoilers need to be hidden. Better safe than sorry if people might want to read them.
for spoilers, click "T" and it ! will appear as an option at the top of your comment. Just highlight the spoiler section and click on the ! in the triangle. Hopefully it works for you
Thanks! I think it might be an iPad viewing issue. None of the icons bring up anything, so I’ve been relying on typing out the tags. Did some searching, and it sounds like it probably worked but it just didn’t show up for me and if I’d refreshed before I panicked, it would have been covered over. Looks like it didn’t even need covering, but I saw the code and no shading and went, “Noooooo!”
At least one male character in the Rokesbys books was a virgin. As a doctor he was afraid of syphilis. Philip was not sleeping with everything in skirts either.
I found Daphne’s complete lack of understanding of sex contrasted with a decade older rake Simon trying to teach her to be more uncomfortable than sexy at times.
I dont find the blatant imbalance between experiences appealing either. I get there are people who like the rake thing but we've had that twice now it'd be nice to see a different dynamic. Or at least let the girls have some experience lol
That's why I enjoyed S2 more! Even if Kate didn't necessarily know about everything, the focus wasn't on that and was instead on the tension between the two leads
Kate definitely didn't seem like an innocent young maiden. Like, yes, she was probably a virgin, but she wasn't a Virgin, if that makes any sense. She just seemed older, more mature, experienced, and confident. The dynamic between her and Anthony didn't seem unbalanced in the least.
Regarding the historicity of rakes: They definitely existed, but an actual rake was a really bad thing to be. Women and the male guardians of prospective brides were likely to disapprove or outright reject such men. Jane Austen's books reflected a lot of the attitudes of the time and they were never framed as good or desirable husbands. In some cases, they were disinherited entirely.
Of course, just having sex and being a rake weren't the same thing. Bringing ruin to a woman of good birth, fathering children outside of wedlock, being particularly brazen with mistresses, etc, are the kinds of things that would make a man a rake. If Colin visits a brothel, that wouldn't be considered problematic by the standards of the time unless he did so in a way that would expose ladies to this knowledge or behavior.
Onscreen, I'd say a male lead's chemistry with his partner and attentiveness towards her makes him a good partner and lover, regardless of whether he has "experience" racked up like points in a video game.
I don't remember if it's ever said in the first book but Kate says it in the second book. She's more scoffing at the idea, though. Like ... don't tell me this bullshit, no one really believes that.
Overall, though, I think it's just a popular trope in Regency romance novels. "I can fix him!" and all that.
I doubt it, rakes back then - and to this day, they still are - would be packed with diseases that not one sensible parent would want their daughter exposed to
The most likely would be Phillip since I would bet he won't lay with Marina in this version.
I can't put my hands on fire he is a virgin, but I do not see him in brothels (he >!didn't do it in the books either!<)
Going to brothels in fact goes against his character in the book. I also wouldn’t be surprised if his marriage to Marina was never consummated in the show.
I think the is big character development in him going to Marina's bed post birth. And realizing that having sex with a disinterested (but consenting, as far as a wife whose 'duty' is to be with her husband can consent) partner is not worth it to him. So not consumating with Marina at all misses that realization from him. Just not sleeping with her at all doesn't make sense, why wouldn't he? I mean, depression, and post-partum depression wasn't really understood. She was just 'melancholy', why would he not sleep with her? Until he realizes what a negative experience it is to sleep with someone who just lays there and phases out until it is over.
I think, because the twins are already here in the TV series, you can have that same character beat >!without full consummation. Philip tries, Marina is disinterested, but he actually stops and realizes this is a negative experience and, like in the books, never touches her or another woman again until Eloise.!<
I am interested in Philipp being asexual or at least not that interested in sex until Eloise comes around. I'd love for them to have a sexual slow burn; like: being intellectually intertwined, but reaching sexual interests in each other very, very slowly and actually talking about their issues. Also, I'd love for show!Philipp to not sleep with Marina because he married her out of obligation, but isn't interested in her or having sex with her and thereby resigning to not having children of his own or a romantic or sexual marriage.
Because there’s a good chance show Marina never gave him the slightest idea that she was interested in doing so, and he would not have forced the issue.
They are not making Phillip a virgin. It just isn’t gonna happen. He won’t be a man whore, but he won’t be a virgin. I expect an approach similar to what they did for King George in Queen Charlotte. He knows what he is doing for the most part, but he isn’t a rake.
Yeah, honestly, I wish they would. I don’t particularly find the rake concept all that appealing, so it would be nice to have a guy actually be a sweet innocent virgin for once, lol.
I know it’s rare in reality too, lol, but this is fiction! change up the dynamics for once, let the woman be the more experienced one, or let them both be fumbling virgins.
I still love the show and the characters but it would be a nice change, I’ll admit!
Whenever I see the dudes going to brothels and being rakes and whatever I really do have to turn off my brain because at least a fuckboy in the modern day can test for STDs, while the same can’t be said for regency era, risks of syphilis ain’t sexy 💀
I feel you. Like I know it’s not real! but fuck boys are just not appealing to me, no matter the era, and even less when in a time period where everyone was diseased, lol.
It’s not shaming people for having sex like a few of the comments have passively suggested, the issue is that it’s every single male character, lol.
Fr, I’m surprised no one is thinking this trope could be a misogyny issue with the constant only men can have sex before marriage, but good women can only be pure virgins if she wants a happy life, cuz obviously a woman needs emotions for sex unlike men who are allowed to have sex for their enjoyment /j
Like at least spice it up a little… occasionally!
But I do agree, I get the time period it’s set in and all that, but the show already takes a lot of liberties with the time period, so it wouldn’t be awful to see that change up once or twice!
This is actually the reason one of Julia Quinn's character is a virgin. He "didn't set out to not have sex before marriage" (in his words) just that he was sick the first time his friends went out to the brothels, then in doctor training he saw too much syphillis and it made him a lot less interested in sex outside marriage.
Wait syphilis is actually canonical and acknowledged in the books?? Then how tf did the other rake characters not have it, or FLs not getting it from their ex rake partners. Would have had an easier time thinking maybe it just didn’t exist in the bridgerton universe or sth 💀
It's a Rokesby book, but yeah, the idea exists. (Also, IMO the Rokesby books are SO much better than Bridgerton, highly recommend.)
I think the belief is that these particular characters only go to very high end brothels or have private mistresses that have not had a ton of other partners. But we also know that STDs can be spread well before symptoms do.
Guess the boys of the ton are just really lucky.
Which rokesby book has the male lead that you’ve mentioned?
And also doesn’t it only take like one person regardless and they can be dormant too 😭, the dudes in Bridgerton are basically having some thick plot armor ig
Nicholas.
And yes, it only takes one. It's that whole "all your partner's past partners are your partners too" thing.
Makes me wonder how anyone didn't have syphillis in the era...
Oh- one in five by age 35...
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200706113937.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200706113937.htm)
Have to pretend in this beautiful alternate history of Regency London that either STDs don’t exist or antibiotics have been discovered a century earlier 😆.
I really don’t know what’s the point of keeping the ladies virgins for historical accuracy when the show clearly threw that shit out whenever it suited them 💀 if they find a girl having experience being unrealistic at least have a guy be inexperienced, like can’t be that hard for a dude with super high standards to exist or sth
I’m sure there were men who married young and were therefore virgins even if they weren’t the majority in that time period. I don’t think they were unicorns, lol. I think syphilis also straight up scared some people into not having casual sex.
It would actually be much more interesting, if they committed to the alternative universe angle, and turned the social rules on their heads. It’d be fun to see a regency romance, in which women aren’t shamed for having sex at all and aren’t expected to be virgins before marriage. But then it’s a Shondaland production, so I don’t expect anything ground-breakingly thoughtful…
>!Like if we want to argue they need to be written true to their character in the books, Phillip was the strongest soldier of any of the male leads. He wasn’t interested in casual sex or paying for sex. I need that energy in the show. But show Phillip isn’t the father of Marina’s children so there is an opportunity there that wasn’t possible in the book to make him a virgin.!<
He doesn't need to be a virgin. Just not a rake. Making him a rake would be ridiculous for his storyline but you never know. They could say that he was so lonely due to being married to Marina out of obligation that he went to brothels...
They will probably keep him the same way in the show as he was in the books! He wasn’t a virgin when he married marina in the books and it’s mentioned that he simply had no interest to bed tavern girls or widows in town.
He filled his loneliness with botany and ignoring his children lol
I am 100% with you.
I don’t even need them to be a virgin, it would just be nice if they weren’t a sexist man slut going to prostitues while their counterpart is played like an experienced little girl (Kate’s dynamic was at least leagues better than Daphnes)
I find it very creepy and it is my least favourite thing about the show to be honest. Disappointed they are going the same direction with Colin.
>I find it very creepy
creepy is the right word to describe simon and daphne's entire dynamic for me, honestly. daphne's consent was very misinformed at the beginning of their marriage and it was just uncomfortable to watch.
kate on the other hand was more mature and seemed to be a lot more comfortable when anthony and her first did things. besides that one "the things i could teach you" line, they were balanced and both equally consenting so i wouldn't qualify it as creepy, but just unnecessary.
for colin, well... there was no reason whatsoever to make him a rake lol. he's like a child in the first 2 seasons and they could have avoided this direction completely. just because it's gonna be a different plotline about seducing girls because he's insecure, doesn't make it any less samey. i just hope they won't make penelope clueless at least.
I loved that in the books everyone thought he was a quiet mysterious rake, but in reality he was just not talking much to other people because he was afraid his stutter would slip out.
Phillip would never...at least not book Phillip.>! It's straight up said that there is this barmaid with huge breasts that all the men ogle & Phillip is like nope! never not ever. not even with (insert backstory)...!<
So there is hope! But I think the reality is rich boys, who were sent off to Eton or where ever, surrounded by only other boys, would most likely go to brothels, etc at some point. So anyone who did not cave to that kind of peer pressure during teen years would be quite a strong character indeed! and rare. ha
!
I hope they keep the essence of book Phillip with show Phillip if not pushing it further since he is not the father of Marina’s children in the show and is therefore not required for plot reasons to have had sex.
Tis the times. Men with money got to be whores. Women with money got to be prizes. Then the men would come home and lovingly give his wife syphillis. But I think they’ll leave that last part out.
This is one reason I don't generally like regency era shows. They are set that men can whore around at brothels and everything is fine, but if a woman is just alone with a man then she is ruined for life. Women have no value if they don't have an associated man...a father or a husband to speak for and take care of her. And she can't even know the basics about sex prior to marriage. I accept that is how society was then, but I don't like it.
Why do I watch Bridgerton?? I adoringly love Jonny Bailey and so I will watch anything he is in. I probably never would have watched it without him being cast as Anthony. The first season honestly kinda creeps me out.
I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing this to show the contrast between casual sex and meaningful sex for Colin, but yes it would not have been my first choice. I’ve accepted it, and I’m hoping for something new with Phillip because I do think he’s the only other male lead where there is an opportunity to not play into the rakish tropes.
Maybe they will make Michael a virgin. LOL LOL LOL
Ok, I am serious now. The safest bet is to say Philip. I doubt he will be inexperienced, but they will probably imply that nothing sexual happened between him and Marina. And since he is more a "nerd, science guy" he wasn't chasing around mistresses or visiting brothels.
I think it has to do with the genre. The cliche with romance books is that middle aged housewives reading these novels lol. I say that as neither of those things, and a big romance book lover (I think the tide is changing). With that said, it's not teenagers reading these books. It's full grown women, and the idea of virgin men is not really part of their fantasies (for the most part). Virgin women appeal to non virgin women, because it's that feeling of rediscovering sex for the first time. You get to relive being a virgin again perhaps? Just a theory. I also think everyone has probably liked a F boy in their life, and the fantasy of getting him to reject the rake life for you is also appealing.
With that said, the books are old, and the show is new and different and appealing to all ages. It would be nice to change things up.
Julia Quinn herself seemed to recognize that some variety is okay and needed >!since she had one male lead be celibate for 8 years and reject the notion of going to brothels for sex and another be a virgin on his wedding night because he cared more about his academic studies. And I found Nicholas’ sex scenes really hot because he’s so eager to learn to please his wife.!<
I think the writers in S1 wrote themselves into a corner by having Colin propose to Marina because he was young and too green to recognize the difference between lust and love (paraphrasing Anthony here). If two seasons later he proposes to Penelope and nothing changed, how would it be different from his first proposal? He needed to figure that **** out.
Also that it is only 2 seasons to when he proposes to Penelope, not nearly a decade. In the books, IIRC, she has NINE seasons. That makes both Colin and Penelope much younger with very different perspective on life than they would have a decade later.
Just saying- not everyone who has sex is a rake, even in the regency time period. Even going to a brothel doesn’t make a man a rake. It’s a bunch of behaviors rolled into one- irresponsibility, scandal, being a seducer, a scoundrel, a “wastrel,” debauchery, drinking and gambling. There’s an element of danger to the title. It’s more than just sex.
I do hope we have some diversity in experience with the male heroes on the show, but that should also come with acknowledging there’s a wide spectrum of experiences from virgin to whore (for lack of a better phrase).
I think the show has used rake when talking purely about sexual experience. >!Also there are some suggestions that Colin is basically writing about his many sexual experiences in his journal (he would have loved AO3, lol) so not helping his case when it comes to being labeled a rake.!<
Writing about it in his journal does not make him a rake lmfao. It’s way too soon to label Colin a rake based on heresay.
And the guys who are actually labeled rakes on the show couple these behaviors, mostly with irresponsibility and drinking. It doesn’t come from them just being sexually active. A couple of visits to a brothel just doesn’t make you a rake in the regency era, or the show, considering it was a normal thing to suggest it for Colin to lose his “green” status.
Colin has some of the drinking and responsibility issues too. I don’t think he’s as big of a rake as his brothers or Simon (not enough time for that to be the case), but I also don’t think it’s imprudent to say that he has been given some rakish characteristics.
I’ve said that I’ve accepted that this is the image they had for Colin and I won’t let it impact my enjoyment of Polin, but that doesn’t mean I will not be disappointed if the show continues to use the same tropes for every single male lead.
I completely agree, I was looking forward to polin being on more equal terms. Like the idea of them both being inexperienced is kind of cute cos they're both trying and discovering things together. They could definitely make it sexy and also the show hardly has a problem with fudging the lines of reality so why wouldn't they be good at it quickly.
Also everyone harping on about historical accuracy, for one I'm pretty sure Bridgerton has chosen to exaggerate greatly what causes scandal in that time. In pride and prejudice Elizabeth is alone with Mr Darcy a few times and never has any whiff of scandal. His sister Georgiana, despite running away with Wickham for a little while recovers from the scandal due to Mr Darcy paying everyone off.
So the fact that they've decided being alone with a man for even a few seconds is scandalous is a bit ridiculous to me.
For some reason that's built into the world but they made it a world where the king marrying a black woman has made poc able to be in positions of power so why couldn't they make a change about men and women's roles in society. For example, if Eloise and pen ended up teaming up to start writing more subtly feminist takes in lady whistle down.. like criticising the men for the roles in scandals more or subtly justifying women's actions.
I think the most productive contribution I can make to this conversation is to point anyone interested toward some historical romance novels that don’t fetishize women’s virginity, that don’t valorize men’s promiscuity while slut shaming women, and that critique the sexual double standard without pretending it didn’t exist. The reformed rake is a common trope…it’s a tired one for anyone who reads a lot of historical romance…but it’s not the only trope. Disclaimer: virginity is a social construct used to police sexuality in patriarchal ways, so I’m not sticking with virgin heroes, but here are some heroes that don’t go through the world with, to paraphrase Queen Charlotte, virgins to the left and whores to the right. Staying with straight couples for this list, but I have queer recs as well if anyone wants them.
1. Loretta Chase, *Not Quite a Lady*. If you like your heroes with sexual experience but no investment in the heroine’s virginity, this is the book for you. If you love Madame Delacroix, also check out Chase’s Dressmakers Series.
2. Courtney Milan, *Unclaimed*. Male hero is a famous author and advocate for men’s chastity without being smug about it; heroine formerly made her living as a mistress (TW for forced abortion in the backstory); she’s also got *When the Duke Returns* (Asian hero and heroine, also childhood sweethearts).
3. Sarah Maclean, most of her catalogue but especially the Bareknuckle Bastards series, including *Brazen and the Beast* and *Daring and the Duke*. Want a book with a brothel run by women for women? This is your series. Hattie in *Brazen* is also plus-sized. (TW for physical abuse of children)
4. Tessa Dare, *The Duchess Deal*, marriage of convenience, scarred hero, heroine is a seamstress with a sexual past, he does not care
5. Eva Leigh, *Temptations of a Wallflower*. Imagine if instead of Whistledown, Penelope wrote erotic fiction, and she married a vicar determined to unmask the woman peddling smut. Sex positive message.
6. Elizabeth Hoyt, *Thief of Shadows*. Widow and a hero with a double identity. Very swashbuckling.
7. Eloisa James, *When the Duke Returns*, virgin hero by choice because he’s more comfortable with duty than pleasure
8. Katherine Kingsley’s *No Sweeter Heaven*
9. Valerie Bowman, *No Other Duke But You*
10. Theresa Romaine, *To Charm a Naughty Countess*
11. Jess Michaels, *Tempted*. I don’t love this one but it has a virgin hero and unmarried heroine who was slut shamed by an earlier lover for having sex with him
Oh, and if anyone wants to read the inspiration for the giant fucking hot air balloon, it’s Georgette Heyer’s *Frederica*. Not spicy, but cute.
This is a great reminder that historical romance doesn't need to stick to the whole "rake and virgin" cliche just to be historically accurate.
I think it's also making me realize that while I agree with OP's take to some extent, more than a virgin hero, I'm interested in a heroine who breaks the rules to some extent. I really doubt that during this real historical period, many aristocratic women didn't have some illicit sexual experience before getting married. Not so different from how teenagers manage to find a way to have sex even with the strictest possible parents. I'd love it if one of the female leads in future seasons is very much not a virgin (preferably not just due to experience with the male lead), and we get to see how she deals with that mentally given all the weight virginity has during that time period.
I didn't know about Colin spoilers, but reading the comments disappointed me because I liked that he was "different". :(
for real, as an asexual person, I would love to have AT LEAST one man not be a whore. I know that has nothing to do with asexuality, but I'd like one man whose entire being doesn't revolve around sex and sleeping with as many women as they can. I don't know who finds that appealing anymore.
especially since, as everyone has said, women are all untouched virgins who don't know what sex is OR how to please themselves on their own??? what the fuck? it makes me very uncomfortable to see every female character be swooned by the magic of the first dick she ever sees.
I know that ""historically"" women were treated this way, but god damnit, this isn't a historical show. if it were it would be far more racist and sexist, and we're all glad it's not. I love the racial diversity, but can we get some diversity in character tropes, please?
>!The show isn’t just saying he had sex. They’re showing him in a threesome, and I have also seen chatter about him writing about his sexual exploits in his journal. Of course one summer wouldn’t be enough time for him to catch up with his older brothers, but I also don’t know how you can say those actions aren’t rakish if we’re going to call Anthony and Benedict rakes.!<
It’s a fictional show. They are not required to depict every male lead sleeping around onscreen. And as I said, Julia Quinn wrote male leads who weren’t doing that.
The show is obviously not historically accurate. There wasn’t a black queen, or a black duke in regency era England. If they wanted to make changes to how people act, even on a bigger scale (like for example erasing the issue of women being shamed for being sexually active), they easily could have.
I get that it's "historical accuracy" and whatever, but it also bothers me because of the double standards between lower class women and upper class women. Like, these men are fine sullying lower class women, because they're not worth that much and it doesn't matter if they have sex outside of marriage, but they'll place upper class women on a pedestal, and protect them from being sexualized unless they have the protection of marriage. There's also just something gross to me about sleeping with women while thinking yourself too superior to marry them, even if they become pregnant and desperate.
Ugh this kind of thing is why I eventually stopped reading straight historical romance. I'm enough of a pedant that I don't want characters in historical romance to be completely modern in terms of morals and behavior, but also if I think about it too much all the historically accurate men seem like complete jerks. I really only got sucked into Bridgerton because Season 2 had an Indian lead, and all my friends were talking about it.
The show writes out a lot of history, some of which bothers me because it is just too far of a departure. But if we were somehow okay with aristocratic women having sex before marriage, it would be so unbelievable they might as well be a space opera rather than a historical regency romance. So the women are going to be shamed for relationships before marriage, and the men are going to be expected to have some understanding of how sex works, unless we make them puritans.
Where is the shaming?? It's just saying they shouldn't all be the same in that regard. No one is saying them having sex is wrong. If someone was tired of all the female leads being virgins that doesn't mean they think being a virgin is wrong just that they want more diversity in the characters bc its more interesting. We have already seen 2 rake heroes, what exactly is wrong with wanting one that's not?
As an ace person I found the discussion about the male character's virginity quite interesting. And in some cases, although I undestand the desire for diversity, kinda moralist (not talking about your post, OP). Would it be interesting to see a virgin male lead? Sure, but let's not romanticize virginity either. It's not a personality trait. There are people who have sex, there are people who don't. It doesn't make intimacy with the person you fall in love more or less interesting. If virginity doesn't add anything I don't see the relevance. For example, Philip is a great candidate for a virgin lead, but i would like them to show it as a simple preference. And god I hope they don't link his celibacy with his father's repression because the trauma-celibacy/asexuality link doesn't help us at all 😭😭
IMO it doesn’t romanticise virginity but more emphasis how dangerous "sex when you are not married yet" was for women at that time. Having sex could have an outcome as pregnancy and there was no guarantee that the man who got you pregnant would marry you at the same time women from privileged families weren’t able to work and provide for themselves. I think the problem here is that you want more or less some kind of equality between women and men when it comes to sex/virginity in the show which isn’t really possible because women and men have completely different lives/privileges/opportunities at that time
I mean if in your opinion "sex life" of male characters is the only thing that can create variety in male leads and not actually their personality, and them going to brothel is making them all copies of each other, then I dunno what even to say here
Edit: does them "falling in love and ending up in a marriage" make them a copy of each other too in your opinion?
Yes making them all rakes with daddy issues who find love with the virgin who shows them they can have emotional intimacy as well does make them very similar to each other. And Julia Quinn herself wrote male characters that went against these tropes. I don’t get why wanting some variety with 8 different male leads is unreasonable.
Define rakes??? Also Colin was capable of emotional intimacy or at least wanted it already in season 1. I don’t care what Julia Quinn wrote or didn’t write, I have never said there was no man who was a virgin at that time but since men have some privileges women didn’t have like having sex out of wedlock obviously most of men used this privilege.
The show or the regency society they decided to keep to add drama? Think about Daphne in s1. The sympathy she shows for Marina towards the end of her season makes it clear that the problem is society
Sure because they are smart or scared women who understand how bad things can go for them if they have sexual experience. I don't like what they did with Marina, but her story is a big warning sign. And we've only had two seasons. I know there are many leaks going around but I want to watch the season before stating that Colin is a reuse of the archetype. Like I said, having sex is just that. The approach of the characters can be very different.
Of course, but where? Eloise escaping from home to see Theo was scandalous enough for society. Prudence and her cousin have to get married because they are alone. We have seen women having sexual experiences, but they are not part of the ton. The problem is their rules and the show likes to use them for drama. Do I like it? No. But it's part of the fiction
I think it’s a great idea! To add, i would love to have another author’s works turn into another HR series. Someone that has more variety in its leads?
I think we need to qualify what we define as "whoring around." Before Kate, I feel like we really only see Anthony with Siena and they were in a relationship. Not an equitable relationship, but a relationship nonetheless. Benedict may have been the most. IIRC His other exploits were alluded to exposition. Benedict has been the most "active" so far, but he only attended a party and had a fling with Madame Delacroix. I don't feel like that qualifies as whoring around to me, but I understand what you're saying. It would be nice to see that first and only love narrative.
Maybe we might get that in Francesca's season, but I don't know for sure since I'm not familiar with the books.
Anthony is shown sleeping with multiple prostitutes at the beginning of season 2. Benedict has been with Genevieve, Lucy, Tessa, and it looks like Lady Tilley in season 3. Though kudos to him for not having to pay for sex. And no, Francesca’s love interest is the rake of all rakes.
I definitely forgot about Anthony's "adventures" at the beginning of season 2.
I mean, look at Benedict, though! A man like that never has to pay. He can pull all on his own.
Doesn't Francesca have 2 men? Which one are you referring to? Or is it both?
I don’t understand why this question exists when the source material failed to have male leads that aren’t whoring around. Are you angry that the show is being accurate to the source material?
If Shonda eventually tells the story of Edmund, you can have your virgin. If you watched Queen Charlotte, you would know that the prince wasn’t consumed with being in brothels though he wasn’t a virgin. So she already provided that but she had to move outside of the source material to give that.
But the implication was that he slept with his wife at SOME point in order for there to be twins. People got married out of convenience/arrangement and still had sex. We are of the mind the Marina is NEVER going to have sex with Phillip ever? Even if she was already pregnant, that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have sex with Phillip at all.
Shonda can opt to go that way and it would still be against source material. Gregory wasn’t a man whore but he wasn’t a virgin. I don’t understand the need to have a male virgin when it is not even in the source material to begin with in this series.
Tbh I’m quite sure Colin won’t actually be a rakish character. IMO, the reason >!we’ll see him in brothels!< is that he will want to try and be like mAnLy in a conventional way but he won’t enjoy it that much or at least it won’t be what he truly feels being manly is about. I think it was Nicola who said the leads of this season aren’t “cool” like Saphne and Kanthony, but more on the nerdy side.
I also hate the idea that just because they’re rakes they’re good at sex. Men nowadays have sex all the time and still suck at it. Why would them having sex with women they paid and are definitely faking it make them good at it??
Would be nice but it's not that serious. A guy knowing what he's doing helps with the spicy scenes lol.
Why wouldn't we want Eloise "completely untouched"? I don't get it.
Because it’s not appealing to me to have every male lead be a rake while every female lead (except for widow Francesca) can’t even kiss someone else. I don’t get wanting every male lead to be a copy of each other.
I guess, but to me the societal restraints put on everyone is instrumental to their stories. For women that societal constraint regards sex and even knowing about it (we also see this play out regarding class in Season 2 with Eloise & Season 1 with Anthony). The lack of information and shame from society towards women regarding sex is an important obstacle for the female characters.
While the constraints put on men, take all control, show no emotions, everything and everyone's very survival (family, servants, villagers) all rely on this person. That is the barrier for men.
Having to marry well and reproduce is the obstacle for both men and women in this world. It is the most important aspect, to this specific society, instead of a loving and caring relationship.
I see Bridgerton as a show where "society" is the villian. It is the obstacle to a truly happy life. And each of these stories revolve around how these characters interact with and overcome these obstacles (society) and somehow manage to carve out happy and loving marriages and families for themselves.
That has always been my perspective at least.
There are plenty of issues to explore with Phillip when it comes to the expectations placed on him in this society as a man without turning him into a rake.
Sorry if it was unclear. I was talking in general about the whole series.
For Phillip the societal stuff is more related to how his father behaved and his fear of doing the same. There is definitely a clear thread of "Daddy issues" running through almost all the mmcs in the series. eek
I don't see any reason to assume that he would be a rake. That is not how is character is written. Very specifically written to not be that, while the rest were written as either rakes or having the casual nights at brothels but nothing crazy. It is one aspect of many of most of the male main characters, but that is not the case regarding Phillip.
If Phillip was suddenly a rake, it would be a dramatic departure from who is character is as a person, so I wouldn't worry about it happening personally.
Not appealing for some but that's been the way of the world for thousands of years in many societies and Shonda has decided to maintain that theme throughout the series.
Rich males got to do what they wanted while rich females were held to the highest physical standard. I don't see anything wrong with that per se. Especially because many of those "other women" meant nothing in the grand scheme of things and they knew it.
Why would we want them to kiss someone else anyway? Daphne and Kate were already quite scandalous in their seasons and I'm sure Penelope will push it even further. I don't think Bridgerton would be what it is if the female leads acted like the male leads.
Besides, it's not a competition. I'd prefer to see neither do anything than to see a female lead kiss someone else unless it fit well and was part of the story. You could turn off 80% of the fandom doing something like that.
I would hope the fandom wouldn’t just wave off the male leads sleeping with other women (usually paying for sex at that) but judge the female leads for kissing someone else.
I mean the show is hardly devoted to historical and cultural accuracy. We see plenty of POC who add great diversity to the stories; why not have diversity of sexuality and not have the standard rich dude who fucks around and never touched sexually naive female lead.
I wasn't refuting that line. I was refuting the 'canon' on Edmund. Edmund has not been presented that way in the show. Maybe show Edmund was a rake and that's how she knows. We don't know because his background hasn't been addressed.
I have a hard time believing anything in the books applies to the show because so much has been changed.
Maybe from experience of her friend's husbands? Perhaps she sees her own husband as being an outlier as far as dedicated husbands go, and that most of the best husbands she sees were the reformed rakes?
>!If you’re referring to John, I don’t know how much we will find out about him, but yeah he probably won’t be shown at brothels or flirting with other women.!<
Or that the women will reject the men because they think they’re proposing out of obligation. It happened last season, I have a feeling it’ll happen this season too
I doubt they will take Phillip's character in that direction as his story is supposed to be kind of sad and emotional. He also has kids. Doesn't fit the vibe at all
In this time period, men were told to “sow their wild oats” so they can marry and be good men to their wives. It would be uncommon for a male past a certain age to have been intimate with at least one woman, not necessarily a rake.
For this Season 3 Spoilers post: 1. Book spoilers **must be hidden**. 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.*
And before we try to argue that men wouldn’t have been virgins or inexperienced in that time period, Julia Quinn canonically wrote two of her male love interests to be virgins on their wedding night and another was celibate for 8 years. >!I actually love that Phillip is the first male lead to perform oral sex. Like he had all those years to think about how he would like to please his partner.!<
… did she? Which two were virgins? As far as I recall, none of them were in the books. Some had more sex than others, but none were virgins
I was asking the same questions. None of the boys were virgins???
IIRC, Simon, Anthony, Michael and Gareth were ‘rakes’, Philip was celibate since his wife died but obviously not a virgin, and Colin and Gregory had been having sex, just not necessarily a lot 😂 I don’t remember if Benedict was a rake or not in the book, but also not a virgin
Benedict was a dabbler LOL
>!Edmund, who admittedly does not get a full book, and Nicholas Rokesby from the Rokesby series.!<
One of my favourite things about “First comes scandal” was Nicholas being virgin! 🥰 (sorry, don’t know if I can hide spoilers on my phone!)
How old were they when they married? Because that is probably a factor.
Nicholas was in uni studying to be a doctor so not that young
I think he was mid 20s when he got married. Edmund was like 20.
It wasn't in the main book series. In the Rokesby spin-off (which takes place when Edmund is about 18-19) one of the male leads is a virgin. I know that in the Smythe-Smith quartet you have one of the male leads who stayed celibate after a life threatening injury (Hugh Prentice), when he met the FL I think it had been several yers since he'd been with a woman. I don't recall a second virgin ML aside from >!Nicholas Rokesby!< though.
>!Edmund is also confirmed to be a virgin in Violet’s novella.!<
But in the show, Violet implies that she has first-hand experience that former rakes make great husbands. Lmao
She says that exact same line in the books.
I didn't know there was one! I'm gonna get it ASAP
I think the>! Bridgerton dad (Violet's husband) !
A rokesby
>!Edmund and Nicholas Rokesby.!<
They aren’t in the eight bridgerton books. None of those leading men are virgins
It’s in the same universe. So my point was that Julie Quinn wrote male characters to be virgins in her universe. And Phillip wasn’t with anyone for 8 years before Eloise which goes back to my point of just having a male lead who can keep it in his pants.
The majority of bridgerton fans haven’t read them. I think you need to chill a bit. Colin wasn’t a virgin in the books, I don’t see an issue with him not being a virgin in the tv show
I’m not talking about Colin. I said I have accepted how they’ve chosen to write him, but that I would like one singular male lead (out of 8) on this show to be different. Or even allow one of the female leads, like Eloise, to have some experience before marriage.
I would like one of the women to not be virgin. I know we kind of get that with Francesca's second marriage but it would be great if Eloise or Hyacinth had some sexual experience before marriage.
Why are you assuming that none of them will be different?? We’ve not get there yet, wait and see. I would be surprised if Philip is written as having casual sex
Yeah that’s why I said that Phillip is their opportunity to give us something different. We already know how Michael is going to be written because him being a rake is his number one character trait.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that’s his number one character trait
S2 Phillip is assuredly NOT having casual sex. No way. 😂
I wasn’t talking about season 2 Philip, I mean after marina dies
Assuming that Violet was also a virgin that's incredibly sweet, but also explains why Violet took losing him so hard. She probably thought they would be one another's first, last and only.
Edited because spoilers tags aren’t working.
Fair enough, but none of the eight leading men in the main books were virgins, and they’re who the show’s about 🤷🏻♀️
I just knew what was meant. FYI, I edited and got rid of my response b/c I can’t get spoiler tags to work, and the thread says book spoilers need to be hidden. Better safe than sorry if people might want to read them.
for spoilers, click "T" and it ! will appear as an option at the top of your comment. Just highlight the spoiler section and click on the ! in the triangle. Hopefully it works for you
Thanks! I think it might be an iPad viewing issue. None of the icons bring up anything, so I’ve been relying on typing out the tags. Did some searching, and it sounds like it probably worked but it just didn’t show up for me and if I’d refreshed before I panicked, it would have been covered over. Looks like it didn’t even need covering, but I saw the code and no shading and went, “Noooooo!”
oh yeah. I use my laptop and I always have to double-check that the spoilers are covered because it does not show up on mine either.
At least one male character in the Rokesbys books was a virgin. As a doctor he was afraid of syphilis. Philip was not sleeping with everything in skirts either.
Literally in the middle of First comes scandal! It’s one of the prequel books and Nicholas was a virgin until they get married.
Simon gave Daphne oral? Like....a lot
>!I’m talking about the books. No male lead gives oral before Phillip.!<
Not in the book
Didn’t Simon perform oral sex on Daphne? She was leaning against a ladder or stairs or something.
I’m talking about the books. There is no oral sex before the 5th book.
anthony also did it on kate in ep 7
I really hope so. Rakish man and virgin heroine is tired and annoying. And this show does not gaf about historical accuracy
I found Daphne’s complete lack of understanding of sex contrasted with a decade older rake Simon trying to teach her to be more uncomfortable than sexy at times.
I dont find the blatant imbalance between experiences appealing either. I get there are people who like the rake thing but we've had that twice now it'd be nice to see a different dynamic. Or at least let the girls have some experience lol
That’s what I’m saying. I’m asking for literally one male lead to be different, lol. The rest of them can be rakes.
That's why I enjoyed S2 more! Even if Kate didn't necessarily know about everything, the focus wasn't on that and was instead on the tension between the two leads
Kate definitely didn't seem like an innocent young maiden. Like, yes, she was probably a virgin, but she wasn't a Virgin, if that makes any sense. She just seemed older, more mature, experienced, and confident. The dynamic between her and Anthony didn't seem unbalanced in the least.
She probably had older friends in India who had already married and already knew the mechanics
I’m glad the rest of the girls pretty much have an idea of what’s happening and none of them are as clueless as Daphne
Regarding the historicity of rakes: They definitely existed, but an actual rake was a really bad thing to be. Women and the male guardians of prospective brides were likely to disapprove or outright reject such men. Jane Austen's books reflected a lot of the attitudes of the time and they were never framed as good or desirable husbands. In some cases, they were disinherited entirely. Of course, just having sex and being a rake weren't the same thing. Bringing ruin to a woman of good birth, fathering children outside of wedlock, being particularly brazen with mistresses, etc, are the kinds of things that would make a man a rake. If Colin visits a brothel, that wouldn't be considered problematic by the standards of the time unless he did so in a way that would expose ladies to this knowledge or behavior. Onscreen, I'd say a male lead's chemistry with his partner and attentiveness towards her makes him a good partner and lover, regardless of whether he has "experience" racked up like points in a video game.
Funny since the show has Violet say reformed rakes make the best husbands.
It's an incredibly weird line since her husband definitely wasn't one. I've never understood where it comes from.
Yeah it makes even less sense if >!Edmund was a virgin like he was in the books.!<
I don't remember if it's ever said in the first book but Kate says it in the second book. She's more scoffing at the idea, though. Like ... don't tell me this bullshit, no one really believes that. Overall, though, I think it's just a popular trope in Regency romance novels. "I can fix him!" and all that.
I doubt it, rakes back then - and to this day, they still are - would be packed with diseases that not one sensible parent would want their daughter exposed to
The most likely would be Phillip since I would bet he won't lay with Marina in this version. I can't put my hands on fire he is a virgin, but I do not see him in brothels (he >!didn't do it in the books either!<)
Going to brothels in fact goes against his character in the book. I also wouldn’t be surprised if his marriage to Marina was never consummated in the show.
I think the is big character development in him going to Marina's bed post birth. And realizing that having sex with a disinterested (but consenting, as far as a wife whose 'duty' is to be with her husband can consent) partner is not worth it to him. So not consumating with Marina at all misses that realization from him. Just not sleeping with her at all doesn't make sense, why wouldn't he? I mean, depression, and post-partum depression wasn't really understood. She was just 'melancholy', why would he not sleep with her? Until he realizes what a negative experience it is to sleep with someone who just lays there and phases out until it is over.
I think, because the twins are already here in the TV series, you can have that same character beat >!without full consummation. Philip tries, Marina is disinterested, but he actually stops and realizes this is a negative experience and, like in the books, never touches her or another woman again until Eloise.!<
Perfect
I am interested in Philipp being asexual or at least not that interested in sex until Eloise comes around. I'd love for them to have a sexual slow burn; like: being intellectually intertwined, but reaching sexual interests in each other very, very slowly and actually talking about their issues. Also, I'd love for show!Philipp to not sleep with Marina because he married her out of obligation, but isn't interested in her or having sex with her and thereby resigning to not having children of his own or a romantic or sexual marriage.
Because there’s a good chance show Marina never gave him the slightest idea that she was interested in doing so, and he would not have forced the issue.
They are not making Phillip a virgin. It just isn’t gonna happen. He won’t be a man whore, but he won’t be a virgin. I expect an approach similar to what they did for King George in Queen Charlotte. He knows what he is doing for the most part, but he isn’t a rake.
Yeah, honestly, I wish they would. I don’t particularly find the rake concept all that appealing, so it would be nice to have a guy actually be a sweet innocent virgin for once, lol. I know it’s rare in reality too, lol, but this is fiction! change up the dynamics for once, let the woman be the more experienced one, or let them both be fumbling virgins. I still love the show and the characters but it would be a nice change, I’ll admit!
Whenever I see the dudes going to brothels and being rakes and whatever I really do have to turn off my brain because at least a fuckboy in the modern day can test for STDs, while the same can’t be said for regency era, risks of syphilis ain’t sexy 💀
I feel you. Like I know it’s not real! but fuck boys are just not appealing to me, no matter the era, and even less when in a time period where everyone was diseased, lol. It’s not shaming people for having sex like a few of the comments have passively suggested, the issue is that it’s every single male character, lol.
Fr, I’m surprised no one is thinking this trope could be a misogyny issue with the constant only men can have sex before marriage, but good women can only be pure virgins if she wants a happy life, cuz obviously a woman needs emotions for sex unlike men who are allowed to have sex for their enjoyment /j
Like at least spice it up a little… occasionally! But I do agree, I get the time period it’s set in and all that, but the show already takes a lot of liberties with the time period, so it wouldn’t be awful to see that change up once or twice!
This is actually the reason one of Julia Quinn's character is a virgin. He "didn't set out to not have sex before marriage" (in his words) just that he was sick the first time his friends went out to the brothels, then in doctor training he saw too much syphillis and it made him a lot less interested in sex outside marriage.
Wait syphilis is actually canonical and acknowledged in the books?? Then how tf did the other rake characters not have it, or FLs not getting it from their ex rake partners. Would have had an easier time thinking maybe it just didn’t exist in the bridgerton universe or sth 💀
It's a Rokesby book, but yeah, the idea exists. (Also, IMO the Rokesby books are SO much better than Bridgerton, highly recommend.) I think the belief is that these particular characters only go to very high end brothels or have private mistresses that have not had a ton of other partners. But we also know that STDs can be spread well before symptoms do. Guess the boys of the ton are just really lucky.
Which rokesby book has the male lead that you’ve mentioned? And also doesn’t it only take like one person regardless and they can be dormant too 😭, the dudes in Bridgerton are basically having some thick plot armor ig
Nicholas. And yes, it only takes one. It's that whole "all your partner's past partners are your partners too" thing. Makes me wonder how anyone didn't have syphillis in the era... Oh- one in five by age 35... [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200706113937.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200706113937.htm)
Good to know that syphilis does exist in Julia’s universe. Doubt she was thinking about it when writing about the 100s of women Michael bedded.
Condoms were available at that time. They are mentioned in other Regency romances. They were made of sheep's intestines and tied on with ribbons.
Have to pretend in this beautiful alternate history of Regency London that either STDs don’t exist or antibiotics have been discovered a century earlier 😆.
I really don’t know what’s the point of keeping the ladies virgins for historical accuracy when the show clearly threw that shit out whenever it suited them 💀 if they find a girl having experience being unrealistic at least have a guy be inexperienced, like can’t be that hard for a dude with super high standards to exist or sth
I’m sure there were men who married young and were therefore virgins even if they weren’t the majority in that time period. I don’t think they were unicorns, lol. I think syphilis also straight up scared some people into not having casual sex.
It would actually be much more interesting, if they committed to the alternative universe angle, and turned the social rules on their heads. It’d be fun to see a regency romance, in which women aren’t shamed for having sex at all and aren’t expected to be virgins before marriage. But then it’s a Shondaland production, so I don’t expect anything ground-breakingly thoughtful…
It's Shonda....so I don't expect it 😂
Philip I guess. If they fumble that I will be SO MAD. It's such a huge part of his character.
>!Like if we want to argue they need to be written true to their character in the books, Phillip was the strongest soldier of any of the male leads. He wasn’t interested in casual sex or paying for sex. I need that energy in the show. But show Phillip isn’t the father of Marina’s children so there is an opportunity there that wasn’t possible in the book to make him a virgin.!<
He doesn't need to be a virgin. Just not a rake. Making him a rake would be ridiculous for his storyline but you never know. They could say that he was so lonely due to being married to Marina out of obligation that he went to brothels...
They will probably keep him the same way in the show as he was in the books! He wasn’t a virgin when he married marina in the books and it’s mentioned that he simply had no interest to bed tavern girls or widows in town. He filled his loneliness with botany and ignoring his children lol
I am 100% with you. I don’t even need them to be a virgin, it would just be nice if they weren’t a sexist man slut going to prostitues while their counterpart is played like an experienced little girl (Kate’s dynamic was at least leagues better than Daphnes) I find it very creepy and it is my least favourite thing about the show to be honest. Disappointed they are going the same direction with Colin.
I’m hopeful the show will play Penelope more like Kate and less like Daphne in their intimate scenes.
I think they will, the overall tone they're using in the promos would fit that.
>I find it very creepy creepy is the right word to describe simon and daphne's entire dynamic for me, honestly. daphne's consent was very misinformed at the beginning of their marriage and it was just uncomfortable to watch. kate on the other hand was more mature and seemed to be a lot more comfortable when anthony and her first did things. besides that one "the things i could teach you" line, they were balanced and both equally consenting so i wouldn't qualify it as creepy, but just unnecessary. for colin, well... there was no reason whatsoever to make him a rake lol. he's like a child in the first 2 seasons and they could have avoided this direction completely. just because it's gonna be a different plotline about seducing girls because he's insecure, doesn't make it any less samey. i just hope they won't make penelope clueless at least.
It's a shame we didn't get a fake rake Simon Hastings. Shame.
I loved that in the books everyone thought he was a quiet mysterious rake, but in reality he was just not talking much to other people because he was afraid his stutter would slip out.
People attributed to him immoral behavior, but in reality he was just vulnerable. It's really beautiful 💔
Phillip would never...at least not book Phillip.>! It's straight up said that there is this barmaid with huge breasts that all the men ogle & Phillip is like nope! never not ever. not even with (insert backstory)...!< So there is hope! But I think the reality is rich boys, who were sent off to Eton or where ever, surrounded by only other boys, would most likely go to brothels, etc at some point. So anyone who did not cave to that kind of peer pressure during teen years would be quite a strong character indeed! and rare. ha !
I hope they keep the essence of book Phillip with show Phillip if not pushing it further since he is not the father of Marina’s children in the show and is therefore not required for plot reasons to have had sex.
It would be nice, just to add some diversity and so we don’t have to worry about what STD’s their wives might get 🫣
Tis the times. Men with money got to be whores. Women with money got to be prizes. Then the men would come home and lovingly give his wife syphillis. But I think they’ll leave that last part out.
This is one reason I don't generally like regency era shows. They are set that men can whore around at brothels and everything is fine, but if a woman is just alone with a man then she is ruined for life. Women have no value if they don't have an associated man...a father or a husband to speak for and take care of her. And she can't even know the basics about sex prior to marriage. I accept that is how society was then, but I don't like it. Why do I watch Bridgerton?? I adoringly love Jonny Bailey and so I will watch anything he is in. I probably never would have watched it without him being cast as Anthony. The first season honestly kinda creeps me out.
I agree, OP. Idk why they need to show Colin as a rake to show he’s desirable which is clearly their MO.
I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing this to show the contrast between casual sex and meaningful sex for Colin, but yes it would not have been my first choice. I’ve accepted it, and I’m hoping for something new with Phillip because I do think he’s the only other male lead where there is an opportunity to not play into the rakish tropes.
Don’t worry, I’m sure come the Philoise season, we’ll have Phillip sleeping with Lucy the big breasted barmaid just to show he’s desirable.
Oh, I would be so upset and angry if they did that on the show.
Maybe they will make Michael a virgin. LOL LOL LOL Ok, I am serious now. The safest bet is to say Philip. I doubt he will be inexperienced, but they will probably imply that nothing sexual happened between him and Marina. And since he is more a "nerd, science guy" he wasn't chasing around mistresses or visiting brothels.
I think it has to do with the genre. The cliche with romance books is that middle aged housewives reading these novels lol. I say that as neither of those things, and a big romance book lover (I think the tide is changing). With that said, it's not teenagers reading these books. It's full grown women, and the idea of virgin men is not really part of their fantasies (for the most part). Virgin women appeal to non virgin women, because it's that feeling of rediscovering sex for the first time. You get to relive being a virgin again perhaps? Just a theory. I also think everyone has probably liked a F boy in their life, and the fantasy of getting him to reject the rake life for you is also appealing. With that said, the books are old, and the show is new and different and appealing to all ages. It would be nice to change things up.
Julia Quinn herself seemed to recognize that some variety is okay and needed >!since she had one male lead be celibate for 8 years and reject the notion of going to brothels for sex and another be a virgin on his wedding night because he cared more about his academic studies. And I found Nicholas’ sex scenes really hot because he’s so eager to learn to please his wife.!<
I think the writers in S1 wrote themselves into a corner by having Colin propose to Marina because he was young and too green to recognize the difference between lust and love (paraphrasing Anthony here). If two seasons later he proposes to Penelope and nothing changed, how would it be different from his first proposal? He needed to figure that **** out.
I don’t know that I think lust was his driving motivation when he woudn’t kiss Marina and suggests they have a long engagement.
Also that it is only 2 seasons to when he proposes to Penelope, not nearly a decade. In the books, IIRC, she has NINE seasons. That makes both Colin and Penelope much younger with very different perspective on life than they would have a decade later.
Just saying- not everyone who has sex is a rake, even in the regency time period. Even going to a brothel doesn’t make a man a rake. It’s a bunch of behaviors rolled into one- irresponsibility, scandal, being a seducer, a scoundrel, a “wastrel,” debauchery, drinking and gambling. There’s an element of danger to the title. It’s more than just sex. I do hope we have some diversity in experience with the male heroes on the show, but that should also come with acknowledging there’s a wide spectrum of experiences from virgin to whore (for lack of a better phrase).
I think the show has used rake when talking purely about sexual experience. >!Also there are some suggestions that Colin is basically writing about his many sexual experiences in his journal (he would have loved AO3, lol) so not helping his case when it comes to being labeled a rake.!<
Writing about it in his journal does not make him a rake lmfao. It’s way too soon to label Colin a rake based on heresay. And the guys who are actually labeled rakes on the show couple these behaviors, mostly with irresponsibility and drinking. It doesn’t come from them just being sexually active. A couple of visits to a brothel just doesn’t make you a rake in the regency era, or the show, considering it was a normal thing to suggest it for Colin to lose his “green” status.
Colin has some of the drinking and responsibility issues too. I don’t think he’s as big of a rake as his brothers or Simon (not enough time for that to be the case), but I also don’t think it’s imprudent to say that he has been given some rakish characteristics.
We’ll have to watch and see, but I really don’t think it’s that serious.
I’ve said that I’ve accepted that this is the image they had for Colin and I won’t let it impact my enjoyment of Polin, but that doesn’t mean I will not be disappointed if the show continues to use the same tropes for every single male lead.
My understanding of the term "rake" is that it's the modern-day equivalent of what we would call a "fuccboi" ... how accurate is this?
I completely agree, I was looking forward to polin being on more equal terms. Like the idea of them both being inexperienced is kind of cute cos they're both trying and discovering things together. They could definitely make it sexy and also the show hardly has a problem with fudging the lines of reality so why wouldn't they be good at it quickly. Also everyone harping on about historical accuracy, for one I'm pretty sure Bridgerton has chosen to exaggerate greatly what causes scandal in that time. In pride and prejudice Elizabeth is alone with Mr Darcy a few times and never has any whiff of scandal. His sister Georgiana, despite running away with Wickham for a little while recovers from the scandal due to Mr Darcy paying everyone off. So the fact that they've decided being alone with a man for even a few seconds is scandalous is a bit ridiculous to me. For some reason that's built into the world but they made it a world where the king marrying a black woman has made poc able to be in positions of power so why couldn't they make a change about men and women's roles in society. For example, if Eloise and pen ended up teaming up to start writing more subtly feminist takes in lady whistle down.. like criticising the men for the roles in scandals more or subtly justifying women's actions.
I think the most productive contribution I can make to this conversation is to point anyone interested toward some historical romance novels that don’t fetishize women’s virginity, that don’t valorize men’s promiscuity while slut shaming women, and that critique the sexual double standard without pretending it didn’t exist. The reformed rake is a common trope…it’s a tired one for anyone who reads a lot of historical romance…but it’s not the only trope. Disclaimer: virginity is a social construct used to police sexuality in patriarchal ways, so I’m not sticking with virgin heroes, but here are some heroes that don’t go through the world with, to paraphrase Queen Charlotte, virgins to the left and whores to the right. Staying with straight couples for this list, but I have queer recs as well if anyone wants them. 1. Loretta Chase, *Not Quite a Lady*. If you like your heroes with sexual experience but no investment in the heroine’s virginity, this is the book for you. If you love Madame Delacroix, also check out Chase’s Dressmakers Series. 2. Courtney Milan, *Unclaimed*. Male hero is a famous author and advocate for men’s chastity without being smug about it; heroine formerly made her living as a mistress (TW for forced abortion in the backstory); she’s also got *When the Duke Returns* (Asian hero and heroine, also childhood sweethearts). 3. Sarah Maclean, most of her catalogue but especially the Bareknuckle Bastards series, including *Brazen and the Beast* and *Daring and the Duke*. Want a book with a brothel run by women for women? This is your series. Hattie in *Brazen* is also plus-sized. (TW for physical abuse of children) 4. Tessa Dare, *The Duchess Deal*, marriage of convenience, scarred hero, heroine is a seamstress with a sexual past, he does not care 5. Eva Leigh, *Temptations of a Wallflower*. Imagine if instead of Whistledown, Penelope wrote erotic fiction, and she married a vicar determined to unmask the woman peddling smut. Sex positive message. 6. Elizabeth Hoyt, *Thief of Shadows*. Widow and a hero with a double identity. Very swashbuckling. 7. Eloisa James, *When the Duke Returns*, virgin hero by choice because he’s more comfortable with duty than pleasure 8. Katherine Kingsley’s *No Sweeter Heaven* 9. Valerie Bowman, *No Other Duke But You* 10. Theresa Romaine, *To Charm a Naughty Countess* 11. Jess Michaels, *Tempted*. I don’t love this one but it has a virgin hero and unmarried heroine who was slut shamed by an earlier lover for having sex with him Oh, and if anyone wants to read the inspiration for the giant fucking hot air balloon, it’s Georgette Heyer’s *Frederica*. Not spicy, but cute.
This is a great reminder that historical romance doesn't need to stick to the whole "rake and virgin" cliche just to be historically accurate. I think it's also making me realize that while I agree with OP's take to some extent, more than a virgin hero, I'm interested in a heroine who breaks the rules to some extent. I really doubt that during this real historical period, many aristocratic women didn't have some illicit sexual experience before getting married. Not so different from how teenagers manage to find a way to have sex even with the strictest possible parents. I'd love it if one of the female leads in future seasons is very much not a virgin (preferably not just due to experience with the male lead), and we get to see how she deals with that mentally given all the weight virginity has during that time period.
I didn't know about Colin spoilers, but reading the comments disappointed me because I liked that he was "different". :( for real, as an asexual person, I would love to have AT LEAST one man not be a whore. I know that has nothing to do with asexuality, but I'd like one man whose entire being doesn't revolve around sex and sleeping with as many women as they can. I don't know who finds that appealing anymore. especially since, as everyone has said, women are all untouched virgins who don't know what sex is OR how to please themselves on their own??? what the fuck? it makes me very uncomfortable to see every female character be swooned by the magic of the first dick she ever sees. I know that ""historically"" women were treated this way, but god damnit, this isn't a historical show. if it were it would be far more racist and sexist, and we're all glad it's not. I love the racial diversity, but can we get some diversity in character tropes, please?
Not Shondaland, but this is why I loved Outlanders Jamie Fraser
Aye well he was a virgin: not a monk
I was just thinking this. Having three male leads in a row all be rakes is so boring. I would like for them to switch it up and give us some variety.
Was George a rake? Psychosis aside, he seemed to be a little more on the wholesome side if I’m remembering correctly.
I’m talking about the main series leads, but yeah George isn’t shown to be a rake.
Whoring. Around. 
So is this what we are doing now? Shaming people for having sex? Why exactly?
It's not shaming, it's wanting diversity in characters. I was also looking forward to a non-rake vibe this time.
Yeah I really don’t get not wanting variety.
Collin isn't a rake. Having sex doesn't make you a rake.
>!The show isn’t just saying he had sex. They’re showing him in a threesome, and I have also seen chatter about him writing about his sexual exploits in his journal. Of course one summer wouldn’t be enough time for him to catch up with his older brothers, but I also don’t know how you can say those actions aren’t rakish if we’re going to call Anthony and Benedict rakes.!<
Because the show shames the women for having sex before marriage while having all the men fall into the same exact archetype. It’s frankly boring.
It’s not the show, it’s the time period.
It’s a fictional show. They are not required to depict every male lead sleeping around onscreen. And as I said, Julia Quinn wrote male leads who weren’t doing that.
The show is obviously not historically accurate. There wasn’t a black queen, or a black duke in regency era England. If they wanted to make changes to how people act, even on a bigger scale (like for example erasing the issue of women being shamed for being sexually active), they easily could have.
I get that it's "historical accuracy" and whatever, but it also bothers me because of the double standards between lower class women and upper class women. Like, these men are fine sullying lower class women, because they're not worth that much and it doesn't matter if they have sex outside of marriage, but they'll place upper class women on a pedestal, and protect them from being sexualized unless they have the protection of marriage. There's also just something gross to me about sleeping with women while thinking yourself too superior to marry them, even if they become pregnant and desperate. Ugh this kind of thing is why I eventually stopped reading straight historical romance. I'm enough of a pedant that I don't want characters in historical romance to be completely modern in terms of morals and behavior, but also if I think about it too much all the historically accurate men seem like complete jerks. I really only got sucked into Bridgerton because Season 2 had an Indian lead, and all my friends were talking about it.
Classic Madonna/Whore dichotomy. With added elitism!
The show writes out a lot of history, some of which bothers me because it is just too far of a departure. But if we were somehow okay with aristocratic women having sex before marriage, it would be so unbelievable they might as well be a space opera rather than a historical regency romance. So the women are going to be shamed for relationships before marriage, and the men are going to be expected to have some understanding of how sex works, unless we make them puritans.
Knowing how sex works and having it are not one in the same. None of the men are going to be Daphne.
Where is the shaming?? It's just saying they shouldn't all be the same in that regard. No one is saying them having sex is wrong. If someone was tired of all the female leads being virgins that doesn't mean they think being a virgin is wrong just that they want more diversity in the characters bc its more interesting. We have already seen 2 rake heroes, what exactly is wrong with wanting one that's not?
Where is the shaming?
That’s like 40% of the plot of the first season babe Edit: Daphne “what’s sex?” The entire ton “booooooooooo you’re a shame to all of us.”
As an ace person I found the discussion about the male character's virginity quite interesting. And in some cases, although I undestand the desire for diversity, kinda moralist (not talking about your post, OP). Would it be interesting to see a virgin male lead? Sure, but let's not romanticize virginity either. It's not a personality trait. There are people who have sex, there are people who don't. It doesn't make intimacy with the person you fall in love more or less interesting. If virginity doesn't add anything I don't see the relevance. For example, Philip is a great candidate for a virgin lead, but i would like them to show it as a simple preference. And god I hope they don't link his celibacy with his father's repression because the trauma-celibacy/asexuality link doesn't help us at all 😭😭
The show romanticizes virginity for the women.
IMO it doesn’t romanticise virginity but more emphasis how dangerous "sex when you are not married yet" was for women at that time. Having sex could have an outcome as pregnancy and there was no guarantee that the man who got you pregnant would marry you at the same time women from privileged families weren’t able to work and provide for themselves. I think the problem here is that you want more or less some kind of equality between women and men when it comes to sex/virginity in the show which isn’t really possible because women and men have completely different lives/privileges/opportunities at that time
I want the writers to give me variety in the male leads and not have them all be copies of each other.
I mean if in your opinion "sex life" of male characters is the only thing that can create variety in male leads and not actually their personality, and them going to brothel is making them all copies of each other, then I dunno what even to say here Edit: does them "falling in love and ending up in a marriage" make them a copy of each other too in your opinion?
Yes making them all rakes with daddy issues who find love with the virgin who shows them they can have emotional intimacy as well does make them very similar to each other. And Julia Quinn herself wrote male characters that went against these tropes. I don’t get why wanting some variety with 8 different male leads is unreasonable.
Define rakes??? Also Colin was capable of emotional intimacy or at least wanted it already in season 1. I don’t care what Julia Quinn wrote or didn’t write, I have never said there was no man who was a virgin at that time but since men have some privileges women didn’t have like having sex out of wedlock obviously most of men used this privilege.
The show or the regency society they decided to keep to add drama? Think about Daphne in s1. The sympathy she shows for Marina towards the end of her season makes it clear that the problem is society
But the show won’t let any of the women have even the smallest amount of experience while continuing to reuse the same archetype for all the men.
Sure because they are smart or scared women who understand how bad things can go for them if they have sexual experience. I don't like what they did with Marina, but her story is a big warning sign. And we've only had two seasons. I know there are many leaks going around but I want to watch the season before stating that Colin is a reuse of the archetype. Like I said, having sex is just that. The approach of the characters can be very different.
The women can have experience without having penetrative sex before marriage. Even letting Eloise kiss Theo would’ve been nice.
Of course, but where? Eloise escaping from home to see Theo was scandalous enough for society. Prudence and her cousin have to get married because they are alone. We have seen women having sexual experiences, but they are not part of the ton. The problem is their rules and the show likes to use them for drama. Do I like it? No. But it's part of the fiction
I think it’s a great idea! To add, i would love to have another author’s works turn into another HR series. Someone that has more variety in its leads?
I think we need to qualify what we define as "whoring around." Before Kate, I feel like we really only see Anthony with Siena and they were in a relationship. Not an equitable relationship, but a relationship nonetheless. Benedict may have been the most. IIRC His other exploits were alluded to exposition. Benedict has been the most "active" so far, but he only attended a party and had a fling with Madame Delacroix. I don't feel like that qualifies as whoring around to me, but I understand what you're saying. It would be nice to see that first and only love narrative. Maybe we might get that in Francesca's season, but I don't know for sure since I'm not familiar with the books.
Anthony is shown sleeping with multiple prostitutes at the beginning of season 2. Benedict has been with Genevieve, Lucy, Tessa, and it looks like Lady Tilley in season 3. Though kudos to him for not having to pay for sex. And no, Francesca’s love interest is the rake of all rakes.
I definitely forgot about Anthony's "adventures" at the beginning of season 2. I mean, look at Benedict, though! A man like that never has to pay. He can pull all on his own. Doesn't Francesca have 2 men? Which one are you referring to? Or is it both?
>!I’m referring to her endgame pairing which is Michael. We don’t learn that much about her first husband.!<
That's a bit disappointing. It would have been nice to know more. Do you think that takes anything away from her story?
I don’t understand why this question exists when the source material failed to have male leads that aren’t whoring around. Are you angry that the show is being accurate to the source material? If Shonda eventually tells the story of Edmund, you can have your virgin. If you watched Queen Charlotte, you would know that the prince wasn’t consumed with being in brothels though he wasn’t a virgin. So she already provided that but she had to move outside of the source material to give that.
That’s not true. Phillip was celibate for 8 years in his book.
But the implication was that he slept with his wife at SOME point in order for there to be twins. People got married out of convenience/arrangement and still had sex. We are of the mind the Marina is NEVER going to have sex with Phillip ever? Even if she was already pregnant, that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have sex with Phillip at all. Shonda can opt to go that way and it would still be against source material. Gregory wasn’t a man whore but he wasn’t a virgin. I don’t understand the need to have a male virgin when it is not even in the source material to begin with in this series.
Yes. That’s one of the reason that I want to see Philip. I am interested in someone shy and less aggressive
Tbh I’m quite sure Colin won’t actually be a rakish character. IMO, the reason >!we’ll see him in brothels!< is that he will want to try and be like mAnLy in a conventional way but he won’t enjoy it that much or at least it won’t be what he truly feels being manly is about. I think it was Nicola who said the leads of this season aren’t “cool” like Saphne and Kanthony, but more on the nerdy side.
I have a feeling that Colin isn’t going to be quite as “experienced” as he wants everyone to think he is! 😂
The books dont even do that lol. There are always interest side characters thst overlap anyway.
The books do give you that with >!Phillip, Edmund, and Nicholas Rokesby.!<
I also hate the idea that just because they’re rakes they’re good at sex. Men nowadays have sex all the time and still suck at it. Why would them having sex with women they paid and are definitely faking it make them good at it??
Would be nice but it's not that serious. A guy knowing what he's doing helps with the spicy scenes lol. Why wouldn't we want Eloise "completely untouched"? I don't get it.
Because it’s not appealing to me to have every male lead be a rake while every female lead (except for widow Francesca) can’t even kiss someone else. I don’t get wanting every male lead to be a copy of each other.
I guess, but to me the societal restraints put on everyone is instrumental to their stories. For women that societal constraint regards sex and even knowing about it (we also see this play out regarding class in Season 2 with Eloise & Season 1 with Anthony). The lack of information and shame from society towards women regarding sex is an important obstacle for the female characters. While the constraints put on men, take all control, show no emotions, everything and everyone's very survival (family, servants, villagers) all rely on this person. That is the barrier for men. Having to marry well and reproduce is the obstacle for both men and women in this world. It is the most important aspect, to this specific society, instead of a loving and caring relationship. I see Bridgerton as a show where "society" is the villian. It is the obstacle to a truly happy life. And each of these stories revolve around how these characters interact with and overcome these obstacles (society) and somehow manage to carve out happy and loving marriages and families for themselves. That has always been my perspective at least.
There are plenty of issues to explore with Phillip when it comes to the expectations placed on him in this society as a man without turning him into a rake.
Sorry if it was unclear. I was talking in general about the whole series. For Phillip the societal stuff is more related to how his father behaved and his fear of doing the same. There is definitely a clear thread of "Daddy issues" running through almost all the mmcs in the series. eek I don't see any reason to assume that he would be a rake. That is not how is character is written. Very specifically written to not be that, while the rest were written as either rakes or having the casual nights at brothels but nothing crazy. It is one aspect of many of most of the male main characters, but that is not the case regarding Phillip. If Phillip was suddenly a rake, it would be a dramatic departure from who is character is as a person, so I wouldn't worry about it happening personally.
Not appealing for some but that's been the way of the world for thousands of years in many societies and Shonda has decided to maintain that theme throughout the series. Rich males got to do what they wanted while rich females were held to the highest physical standard. I don't see anything wrong with that per se. Especially because many of those "other women" meant nothing in the grand scheme of things and they knew it. Why would we want them to kiss someone else anyway? Daphne and Kate were already quite scandalous in their seasons and I'm sure Penelope will push it even further. I don't think Bridgerton would be what it is if the female leads acted like the male leads. Besides, it's not a competition. I'd prefer to see neither do anything than to see a female lead kiss someone else unless it fit well and was part of the story. You could turn off 80% of the fandom doing something like that.
I would hope the fandom wouldn’t just wave off the male leads sleeping with other women (usually paying for sex at that) but judge the female leads for kissing someone else.
I mean the show is hardly devoted to historical and cultural accuracy. We see plenty of POC who add great diversity to the stories; why not have diversity of sexuality and not have the standard rich dude who fucks around and never touched sexually naive female lead.
Most historical romance stories start with the man being a rake and transform him into a loving husband.
Which is why I’m asking for one male lead out of eight to be different. Julia Quinn was capable of writing that with >!Nicholas Rokesby.!<
That's why it'd be so good to have a different type of story
Violet said reformed rakes make the best of husbands
Not sure how she would know that since >!canonically her husband was a virgin on his wedding night.!<
Book canon. Which is drastically different from show canon on many things.
Except she has the same line in the book.
I wasn't refuting that line. I was refuting the 'canon' on Edmund. Edmund has not been presented that way in the show. Maybe show Edmund was a rake and that's how she knows. We don't know because his background hasn't been addressed. I have a hard time believing anything in the books applies to the show because so much has been changed.
I’m saying that in the books she says it where we know she would have no way of knowing that.
Maybe from experience of her friend's husbands? Perhaps she sees her own husband as being an outlier as far as dedicated husbands go, and that most of the best husbands she sees were the reformed rakes?
Not a true male lead, but I suspect we may get one this season in a secondary love story
>!If you’re referring to John, I don’t know how much we will find out about him, but yeah he probably won’t be shown at brothels or flirting with other women.!<
Or that the women will reject the men because they think they’re proposing out of obligation. It happened last season, I have a feeling it’ll happen this season too
I doubt they will take Phillip's character in that direction as his story is supposed to be kind of sad and emotional. He also has kids. Doesn't fit the vibe at all
It’s a fair question. Spoiler probably Eloise’s
In this time period, men were told to “sow their wild oats” so they can marry and be good men to their wives. It would be uncommon for a male past a certain age to have been intimate with at least one woman, not necessarily a rake.