|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 10, 2014 7:41:50 GMT
I was quizzing a (male) friend from a conservative Catholic country about William's options at various points, and he thought there were plenty of "activities" William and Julia might engage in without actually taking their knowledge of each other to fully Biblical levels. Even so, he brought up the "natural method" of birth control. I thought that might be a little unreliable for William: but if he intended to marry Julia, anyway, then he might be willing to risk it.
Since this is technically the "wasting of seed", and one of the epic killjoy books of the 19th century was a diatribe against "onanism" (for health as well as sinfulness reasons), I was wondering if William's Catholicism might limit him on this, too. My friend wasn't sure since the Catholic church doesn't really get into a man's private affairs that way today, and he didn't even realize certain phrases in the Bible could be used against him!
This got me to thinking about William and Julia, The Replay - Season 7. Nothing standing in the way then. It's no longer adultery, and a decent amount of time has passed since Darcy's death - Julia no longer wears black. Julia isn't a virgin, and she seems to be outright "determined" to have William. He knows she can't get pregnant.
There are only 2 quibbles I can think of:
1) William is still a virgin and has been waiting for their wedding night for reasons of religion. If so, would he ask Julia (or would Julia offer) to satisfy him in other ways?
2) Either William or Julia or both think doing the deed before the honeymoon lacks romance. In that case, I should think "the natural method" or any "sort of deed-doing but not" would also be lacking in the romance department.
Any other considerations that I'm missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Sept 10, 2014 16:56:32 GMT
I was quizzing a (male) friend from a conservative Catholic country about William's options at various points, and he thought there were plenty of "activities" William and Julia might engage in without actually taking their knowledge of each other to fully Biblical levels. Even so, he brought up the "natural method" of birth control. I thought that might be a little unreliable for William: but if he intended to marry Julia, anyway, then he might be willing to risk it. Since this is technically the "wasting of seed", and one of the epic killjoy books of the 19th century was a diatribe against "onanism" (for health as well as sinfulness reasons), I was wondering if William's Catholicism might limit him on this, too. My friend wasn't sure since the Catholic church doesn't really get into a man's private affairs that way today, and he didn't even realize certain phrases in the Bible could be used against him! This got me to thinking about William and Julia, The Replay - Season 7. Nothing standing in the way then. It's no longer adultery, and a decent amount of time has passed since Darcy's death - Julia no longer wears black. Julia isn't a virgin, and she seems to be outright "determined" to have William. He knows she can't get pregnant. There are only 2 quibbles I can think of: 1) William is still a virgin and has been waiting for their wedding night for reasons of religion. If so, would he ask Julia (or would Julia offer) to satisfy him in other ways? 2) Either William or Julia or both think doing the deed before the honeymoon lacks romance. In that case, I should think "the natural method" or any "sort of deed-doing but not" would also be lacking in the romance department. Any other considerations that I'm missing? This is nothing to do with the Catholic part of your post however it does have something to do with the nothing standing in their way. William and Julia aren't engaged during this period and I'm not sure William would engage in 'activities' without a commitment. However I'm thinking he may after the engagement. What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 0:45:18 GMT
What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. Wow you have a very sharp eye! I never caught that at, and I've watched those episodes many times! Now I need to check that out for myself!  If William did say that, then it seems like nothing in his belief system is stopping them now.  Ps. Fallenbelle is exempt from having an opinion as we all know she believes there is a disruption in the time-space continuum and/or a wormhole in William's office that enables nookie-non-nookie duality. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Sept 11, 2014 2:01:41 GMT
I was quizzing a (male) friend from a conservative Catholic country about William's options at various points, and he thought there were plenty of "activities" William and Julia might engage in without actually taking their knowledge of each other to fully Biblical levels. Even so, he brought up the "natural method" of birth control. I thought that might be a little unreliable for William: but if he intended to marry Julia, anyway, then he might be willing to risk it. Since this is technically the "wasting of seed", and one of the epic killjoy books of the 19th century was a diatribe against "onanism" (for health as well as sinfulness reasons), I was wondering if William's Catholicism might limit him on this, too. My friend wasn't sure since the Catholic church doesn't really get into a man's private affairs that way today, and he didn't even realize certain phrases in the Bible could be used against him! This got me to thinking about William and Julia, The Replay - Season 7. Nothing standing in the way then. It's no longer adultery, and a decent amount of time has passed since Darcy's death - Julia no longer wears black. Julia isn't a virgin, and she seems to be outright "determined" to have William. He knows she can't get pregnant. There are only 2 quibbles I can think of: 1) William is still a virgin and has been waiting for their wedding night for reasons of religion. If so, would he ask Julia (or would Julia offer) to satisfy him in other ways? 2) Either William or Julia or both think doing the deed before the honeymoon lacks romance. In that case, I should think "the natural method" or any "sort of deed-doing but not" would also be lacking in the romance department. Any other considerations that I'm missing? This is nothing to do with the Catholic part of your post however it does have something to do with the nothing standing in their way. William and Julia aren't engaged during this period and I'm not sure William would engage in 'activities' without a commitment. However I'm thinking he may after the engagement. What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. A sharp eye indeed! I never caught that either! Nice catch! |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 2:03:04 GMT
This is nothing to do with the Catholic part of your post however it does have something to do with the nothing standing in their way. William and Julia aren't engaged during this period and I'm not sure William would engage in 'activities' without a commitment. However I'm thinking he may after the engagement. What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. A sharp eye indeed! I never caught that either! Nice catch! Such an awesome excuse to go back and check to see if it's true.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Sept 11, 2014 4:41:35 GMT
What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. Wow you have a very sharp eye! I never caught that at, and I've watched those episodes many times! Now I need to check that out for myself! If William did say that, then it seems like nothing in his belief system is stopping them now. Ps. Fallenbelle is exempt from having an opinion as we all know she believes there is a disruption in the time-space continuum and/or a wormhole in William's office that enables nookie-non-nookie duality. Yes, I'm choosing to believe in both. It's more fun that way.  Although the knowledge that now they're engaged and maybe they're having some fun is a happy one. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 4:52:02 GMT
Yes, I'm choosing to believe in both. It's more fun that way. Although the knowledge that now they're engaged and maybe they're having some fun is a happy one. I'm watching Walk on the Wild Side now, and sadly the conversation didn't quite go the way Tal was remembering it. William was surprised the fiance didn't know Lucille had a tattoo. The fiance got huffy because he felt the assumption he would have seen the tattoo was the same as assuming he and Lucille were having "relations", which he denied. Apparently he had not so much as seen her bare ankles! But sadly all William was assuming was that an engaged couple would have seen ankles.  I haven't gotten to the end of the ep yet, but I think that was the conversation in question.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Sept 11, 2014 4:54:49 GMT
What makes me think this is in Stroll on the Wild Side he's surprised that Geoffrey Coville and Lucille Messing aren't 'having relations' since they're engaged. Wow you have a very sharp eye! I never caught that at, and I've watched those episodes many times! Now I need to check that out for myself! If William did say that, then it seems like nothing in his belief system is stopping them now. Ps. Fallenbelle is exempt from having an opinion as we all know she believes there is a disruption in the time-space continuum and/or a wormhole in William's office that enables nookie-non-nookie duality. Check around the 15min mark in SotWS 1. He doesn't actually come out and say he's surprised, he's actually talking about the tattoo and he doesn't understand how Geoffrey Coville doesn't know she has one as they're engaged. This suggests to me that he assumes 'something's' going on between them. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Sept 11, 2014 5:00:21 GMT
Yes, I'm choosing to believe in both. It's more fun that way. Although the knowledge that now they're engaged and maybe they're having some fun is a happy one. I'm watching Walk on the Wild Side now, and sadly the conversation didn't quite go the way Tal was remembering it. William was surprised the fiance didn't know Rose had a tattoo. The fiance got huffy because he felt the assumption he would have seen the tattoo was the same as assuming he and Rose were having "relations", which he denied. Apparently he had not so much as seen her bare ankles! But sadly all William was assuming was that an engaged couple would have seen ankles. I haven't gotten to the end of the ep yet, but I think that was the conversation in question. But if a young lady was showing a man some ankles, is it implied that there was more going on? Would this be why Julia has flashed so much ankle at William through the years, including most definitely in 07x17 when she's sitting on his desk with her skirts hiked up? I know our "ankle pronz" references have been mostly a joke, but what if it actually is? |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 5:02:33 GMT
He doesn't actually come out and say he's surprised, he's actually talking about the tattoo and he doesn't understand how Geoffrey Coville doesn't know she has one as they're engaged. This suggests to me that he assumes 'something's' going on between them. I think this only carries implications for ankles, which was pretty risque in itself. But William has already seen Julia's at the beach! |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Sept 11, 2014 5:06:46 GMT
I'm watching Walk on the Wild Side now, and sadly the conversation didn't quite go the way Tal was remembering it. William was surprised the fiance didn't know Rose had a tattoo. The fiance got huffy because he felt the assumption he would have seen the tattoo was the same as assuming he and Rose were having "relations", which he denied. Apparently he had not so much as seen her bare ankles! But sadly all William was assuming was that an engaged couple would have seen ankles. I haven't gotten to the end of the ep yet, but I think that was the conversation in question. But if a young lady was showing a man some ankles, is it implied that there was more going on? Would this be why Julia has flashed so much ankle at William through the years, including most definitely in 07x17 when she's sitting on his desk with her skirts hiked up? I know our "ankle pronz" references have been mostly a joke, but what if it actually is? You really do have to remember how scandalous showing an ankle was. They even put skirts on grand pianos so you couldn't see the legs! A woman that showed her ankles, even to her fiance, would be considered a loose woman. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 5:07:01 GMT
But if a young lady was showing a man some ankles, is it implied that there was more going on? Would this be why Julia has flashed so much ankle at William through the years, including most definitely in 07x17 when she's sitting on his desk with her skirts hiked up? I know our "ankle pronz" references have been mostly a joke, but what if it actually is? My understanding is the ankles are supposed to be a turn-on (kind of like a Chinese woman's bound feet). But that wouldn't automatically imply something is or is not going on. Ankles were more and more on display at the time. Remember Henry's can-can girl's and the Moulin Rouge? We've already seen Julia in a short dress on a bicycle/for exercise and in a bathing suit - so it can't be Temptation Beyond Return. We're only a decade or so away from flappers, too. I would equate flashing an ankle to showing a lot of cleavage. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Sept 11, 2014 5:09:33 GMT
But if a young lady was showing a man some ankles, is it implied that there was more going on? Would this be why Julia has flashed so much ankle at William through the years, including most definitely in 07x17 when she's sitting on his desk with her skirts hiked up? I know our "ankle pronz" references have been mostly a joke, but what if it actually is? You really do have to remember how scandalous showing an ankle was. They even put skirts on grand pianos so you couldn't see the legs! A woman that showed her ankles, even to her fiance, would be considered a loose woman. That explains why the fiance was so insulted, but I think modernity had already caught up with him. Look how easily Julia took off her stockings at the beach! The Ragtime dancer lady came close to doing a strip tease by early 20th c. standards! |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Sept 11, 2014 5:10:19 GMT
Wow you have a very sharp eye! I never caught that at, and I've watched those episodes many times! Now I need to check that out for myself! If William did say that, then it seems like nothing in his belief system is stopping them now. Ps. Fallenbelle is exempt from having an opinion as we all know she believes there is a disruption in the time-space continuum and/or a wormhole in William's office that enables nookie-non-nookie duality. Check around the 15min mark in SotWS 1. He doesn't actually come out and say he's surprised, he's actually talking about the tattoo and he doesn't understand how Geoffrey Coville doesn't know she has one as they're engaged. This suggests to me that he assumes 'something's' going on between them. Hmmm, I can see where one might interpret that as William assuming that there had been some "knowledge" between them-as though this were common among the betrothed. It's compelling evidence for "they did", but there's also evidence for "they didn't". But it's okay, because it's fun to speculate! |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Sept 11, 2014 5:13:48 GMT
But if a young lady was showing a man some ankles, is it implied that there was more going on? Would this be why Julia has flashed so much ankle at William through the years, including most definitely in 07x17 when she's sitting on his desk with her skirts hiked up? I know our "ankle pronz" references have been mostly a joke, but what if it actually is? You really do have to remember how scandalous showing an ankle was. They even put skirts on grand pianos so you couldn't see the legs! A woman that showed her ankles, even to her fiance, would be considered a loose woman. Oh, I do remember! Which is why this is most intriguing indeed! I once read where a young lady chastised a suitor because he referred to her legs, which she told him was vulgar-limbs was the acceptable term. |
|
Although the knowledge that now they're engaged and maybe they're having some fun is a happy one. 
