jordanpond

I recently saw a wonderful movie, "Belle," which includes Penelope Wilton and Matthew Goode in its stellar cast. Set in 18th century England and based on a true story, it beautifully intertwines the personal life of the title character with an extremely important legal case of the day. It's my favorite movie I've seen in a while. I highly recommend it!

Miss Baxter, Mr. Moselely, Rose, Atticus, Sybil, Matthew, Anna (without her husband), and because I clearly don't know how to count to seven, I'll add William. ETA: Ooops. I forgot to say why. Miss B and Mr. M because they support each other so beautifully, Rose and Atticus because I think they are a charming new couple, who face some serious obstacles, yet who have the potential to be a lot of fun. Sybil and Matthew for their mix of social justice and nice personalities, Anna because she is so likeable and talented, and darling William because I'd like for him to come back and do what he really wanted, and to meet a woman who loved him as much as he loved her.

I wasn't criticizing Becca, nor do I think she's being a fanatic. Quite the contrary! And I agree with you that virgins are often portrayed as losers or fanatics, and in my opinion, this is both inaccurate and unfair. I think that the term "waiting for marriage" usually implies a moral decision, as opposed to someone who "just hasn't had sex yet." And I think anyone who is waiting for marriage for moral reasons might be a lot happier looking for someone who has similar values with respect to this. We all seem to think that our values with a prospective spouse should line up on all sorts of topics, so why not this one, too? I don't think that Becca looking for a man with a similar desire to wait for marriage would imply that she is being a fanatic. Rather, it just seems to me like it might lead to a greater chance for happiness than being with a man like Chris, whose values seem like a major mismatch to hers on this topic.

I had said that I did not think Sidney was a good vicar. I really gave thought to what people who disagreed with me said -- if I'm going to participate in a board where people offer so many opinions, I have to leave open the possibility that people can persuade me. And sometimes I am persuaded! But, several people said that they think he is a good vicar because he tries to do the right thing. I still have to disagree. When entering some professions, there is a moral or ethical component that can't be compromised. As one example among many, it is not enough for a defense attorney to merely try to uphold attorney/client privelege. He or she must actually do it. All the time. And I think the bar is set even higher for clergy, because morality and ethics aren't just part of their profession, they are the profession. Not that I think any member of clergy can be perfect, but the errors Sidney makes a rather big ones. Second, I don't see that Sidney even"tries" very hard. On at least two occasions,he not only lied to someone, but had time to think it over, and, rather than correct his error, he chose to lie again. And with respect to the one night stand, he went to a nightclub by himself and drank hard liquor -- not the actions of anyone who is trying at all to avoid making a big mistake. Well, reasonable minds certainly will disagree. I did give your opinions serious consideration, but I guess I remain too turned off by Sidney's actions to give the show another try.

Okay, here's the beginning of my wish list: Delphine 's emerald and gold gown from her book reading. Some of those Chinese fans from accessories. Mae's entire dining room. Some of those delicious looking cakes from that tea room they all visit. All of the above at 1914 prices, of course! Seriously,when you come back, a full report would be appreciated!

A few thoughts about Becca. Although there has been a lot of discussion why Beçca's decision to wait for marriage might be a deal breaker for Chris, what I don't understand why his willingness to sleep with three women during their stay in Bali isn't a deal breaker for her. If she wants to wait for marriage for moral/religious reasons, I don't know why she isn't looking for a man whose values line up with hers a lot better than Chris' values do. Also, I don't quite understand the opinion that her being a virgin is some "thing" that should have been revealed to Chris. I mean, isn't having had zero partners just one option among many,such as having had 2 partners, (or 20 or 200)? No one feels compelled to share the reasons for the latter on this show, so why is the former an issue requiring attention? I guess to me, not having sex in the fantasy suite is a pretty legitimate choice. If I didn't know anything about this show, and met two contestants, one who expected not to sleep with a lead whom she barely knows and who is dating other people, and one who said, "Yeah, if I end up engaged to the lead, and a week before we get engaged he sleeps with 2 other women,that's totally fine with me," I would think the first person was a lot more normal.

My thoughts about the episode, The good: Daisy, Mr. Molesley and Miss Baxter's stroll. As sad as it was, I thought the heartbreaking scene of Rose getting the pictures was really well done. Although I knew Atticus had done nothing wrong, it looked terrible, and I really ached for her. I liked the reason Robert gave Cora for selling the painting. I loved the closing scene of everyone walking back to Downton. I liked all the snippets of the various conversations, and the final shot of the abbey with everyone heading toward it. A visually beautiful and really appropriate closing scene. I agree with all those who loved the clothes. I adored Rose's wedding suit and reception gown, and I thought Tony and Mabel looked particulary smart together, especially when they just arrived and he had his tophat on. I enjoyed Tom, Edith, Rose, and Mary going to lunch together. I'd like to see more of these small groupings. The Bad: There was not enough Rose and Atticus at their reception! I kept wanting to see the happy couple together. I loved them when they first met, but we have rarely scene them alone together since, and I thought this episode would really showcase them. The scene with them together at the reception was so short that it was shorter than the scene with Mary and Mr. Carson. Must scenes of Mary take over everything including someone else's wedding? And speaking of Mary, even if she were my favorite TV character ever, I'd be sick of other characters telling the audience over and over again how great she is. And how did Mr. Carson come to the conclusion that Tony was "not good enough" for her? If he said they weren't right for each other, I could buy that. But not good enough for her? Sadly, I agree with the posters upthread who said that they don't care about the downstairs people any more. With the exception of Mr. Molesley and Miss Baxter, I really don't care about them anymore either. I really used to, though. I miss the days of darling William playing the piano, and Sybil helping Gwen to persevere in her efforts to become a secretary, and when Anna was actually happy, and John Bates was likeable. And I miss how the scheming Miss O'Brien could occasionally completely surprise us by being so compassionate to someone like Mr. Lang, the shell-shocked valet. But almost everything about the downstairs group has been blah for ages.

I thought that Mr.Molesley said that he had already failed an army physical. I admit my memory is fuzzy here since it has been a few years. But whatever he said sounded very reasonable to me at the time. And, as I said above, he was shown out of breath in some subsequent scenes. It doesn't matter to me much one way or another, it's just that when a few people talked about him inventing an illness to avoid the draft, I couldn't recall any evidence of that. I thought that the only ethical issue at the time was that Violet was trying to avoid having some servants go to war because it would benefit her and Robert to keep them home. I walked away with the impression that she had used a fake illness for William but that Mr. Molesley'sillness happened to be true.

While the information supplied from Downton wiki is interesting, the only information that counts, in my opinion, is what is shown on screen. I never had gotten any impression from the show itself that Mr. Molesley had lied,so I don't think we can count anything not actually shown.

After Sidney's one night stand, I lost interest in this series. Despite initially loving the series, I was starting to lose interest when I saw how often he justified lying. The one night stand was the last straw. I agree with the poster up thread who said that Sidney should not be a vicar. I wasn't surprised to read the post stating that the one night stand was not in the book. It seems completely different in nature to the tone that had been set in the first episode.

Interesting post, Andorra. I have a few thoughts about what I've bolded. I'm wondering where his pride is: he knows that he's repeating everything from major plots to some of Violet's one liners: he knows he can't figure out a way to introduce some new stories without contradicting some old ones. I don't know how he can be satisfied in letting these things go. Clearly, he can be, because he continues to do these things, I just don't understand why he seems so willing to let the quality slip rather than do whatever necessary to address it. And if he won't fix things, I don't understand why whoever is paying his salary doesn't insist that the various problems be fixed. I, for one, never watch a show looking for inconsistencies. So if I (along with other posters) are seeing them over and over and over again, why aren't "the powers that be" seeing them and insisting that they be corrected? Also, so true about the one-episode stories of old, like the "Cheerful Charlies" and Mrs. Hughes' old beau at the county fair. They were really enjoyable.

I have two opinions that I did not even think were unpopular until I read this thread: Nothing in Matthew's demeanor ever suggested to me that he was gay or even asexual. I agree that he was presented as chaste, but I don't see how being chaste is connected at all to being asexual. And I don't understand the opinions offered here that he didn't know what "lust" was, or that he was relieved to learn that he would be impotent. I thought he acted to the contrary: devastated at the impotency, and very much looking forward to consummating his marriage to Mary. I never got the impression that Mr. Molesley faked the lung condition to dodge the war. I don't recall them ever showing any evidence of that. What they did show was him "huffing and puffing" a few times while doing simple tasks, which I always interpreted as signs of his lung problems.

Although I agree that he has been mostly been competent, I don't think one has to compare him to the standard of being superhumanly prescient to find him wanting. Although he had correctly diagnosed Matthew's paralysis as temporary, he witheld this information in order to avoiding giving Matthew "false hope," and that was not his decision to make. And of course, he erred in a big way when he initially refused to try Isobel's treatment for Mr. Drake, the farmer with dropsy. If not bullied (in a good way) by Isobel into doing the procedure, he would have let the man die. He does seem like a nice man, though. I have been torn between whether he or Dickie Merton is the right man for Isobel. And although Dickie did stand up to Larry at dinner, I think he should have done something to comfort her privately before he went home. He went down a bit in my book this episode. Speaking of Larry, as someone who initially had trouble telling Larry, Tim, and Atticus apart at dinner, I found the references to "Larry, my brother Daryl, and my other brother Daryl" to be hilarious. Well done, fellow posters! You made me laugh until I cried. Loved seeing Mr. Mason! And although I found that the whole set up to the luncheon at his house stretched credibility, I enjoyed the lunch scene, and agree with whoever said above that they liked seeing Daisy, Mr. Molesley and Miss Baxter dressed up for lunch.

All Edith ever had to do in order to avoid suspicion was to name the child "Mary." She could have brought her directly back from Switzerland with the most ridiculous cover story ever, and no one would have ever guessed that the birth mother who had named the child "Mary" was actually Edith.

Although during seasons one and two, “Downton Abbey” was one of my favorite shows of all time, I’ve found that the quality has gone down dramatically since then. There are some problems that I started to notice in a small way in season two, and these problems are becoming quite major in later seasons. Fortunately, the costumes and scenery are as beautiful as ever, and in every episode I do find a few scenes that are truly heart-warming or surprising, or humorous. I hold out hope that “Downton Abbey” will return to its former glory. I think it’s quite possible. But in order to do so, I think it must overcome some major problems: First, too many repetitive story lines! Many of you have already pointed this out (most humorously by Constantinople in page three of the “season five episode one” thread), so I’ll move onto the next problem: Second, contradictory story lines. The show does still come up with new stories. The problem is, they don’t necessarily match up with old story lines, so they just flat-out contradict a prior fact: Cora tells Michael that she started reading “The Sketch” because of Edith’s column, but back in the pilot, reading “The Sketch” was how she learned about the Titanic; Alfred has such ability and sophisticated taste that he earned a position to study at the prestigious Ritz, yet earlier he was portrayed with such completely unsophisticated taste that he turned up every food item offered to the servants from Edith’s cancelled wedding and chose instead to just eat cheese. Mr. Carson has shared stories with Mrs. Hughes about things that happened at Downton “before she arrived”, but according to Mrs. Hughes’ own storyline, she was already at Downton when these things occurred. Third, to advance new storylines, characters act out of character or in extremely contrived ways. The normally honorable Mrs. Hughes invades Mr. Carson’s privacy by picking his trash in order to read a letter he discarded; Mr. Bates, who as a valet, rarely even encounters Violet, feels comfortable enough to go to Violet’s house uninvited to ask Violet to anonymously give cash to Mr. Molesley (this particular plot was ludicrous for about 5 reasons); on the day that the family is hosting a party, not one but three (!) employees are permitted to go out for a few hours, all so that Mr. Mason can convince Daisy not to stop studying. And finally, while early seasons were notable – and enjoyable, for me – for their variety of opinions about aristocracy and social hierarchy, the show has moved in a decidedly pro-aristocracy and pro-social hierarchy direction. Some of the biggest social changers, Sybil and Matthew, have died, others, like Tom and Isobel, have become a lot less vocal. In early seasons, although Isobel could get quite annoying during the war, we sometimes cheered her progressive ways, such as persuading Violet about the flower show, and saving the farmer’s life. Sybil was quite gentle with her politics and Matthew was rather fun. Now the most vocal “reformers,” Daisy and Miss Bunting, have been presented as so utterly obnoxious and annoying, that even viewers who share the political opinions of these characters can’t wait for them to get the heck off the screen! The balance and complexity of the earlier seasons is gone, and for me, it has been sadly missed. During season four, there were so many of the above problems, that I started to get the vague impression that the writer was frantically creating story lines without thinking them through (hence repeating stories or being unable to create many new stories without contradicting prior stories). By the end of season four, I suspected that the reason we had not been told Miss Baxter’s secret, or what really happened with Mr. Greene, or who Mary would choose, was because at that time, even the writer didn’t even know! Now, unfortunately, I think the problem’s gotten even worse: perhaps the writer isn’t just temporarily scrambling for ideas following the loss of 3 major characters as it seemed to me in season four, I fear he is permanently out of enough ideas to fill each season. Sure, there were some scenes this season that I thought were new and interesting, or romantic or funny or surprising or sad. The problem is, that after the 7 episodes shown so far, if you removed all the repetitive or contradictory story lines, there were only about enough real quality scenes to fill about 3 episodes. There are some things that I still love about this show, and I hold out hope that it returns to its former glory. But if we are going to have a season six – and if we want an entire season full of the quality we enjoyed in season one - I think we need some new writers to be added to the staff. I want to totally fall in love with "Downton" again, but I fear that with the present writing staff, it will never happen.

I've come to realize that part of the reason that Cora's way of speaking has seemed vaguely odd to me is that she doesn't use many contractions when she speaks. I think that most of us, including everyone else at Downton, generally uses contractions, unless we want to emphasize. Where anyone else says, "I won't be going to London," Cora says, "I will not be going to London." This might actually be a very accurate period detail about nouveau riche Americans of Cora's era (or not), but talking this way is very difficult to do without sounding stiff ànd unnatural, and I think it has contributed to the vague feeling I've had in the past that the delivery of her lines has always seemed unconvincing. I'm not sure if she's doing it less this season, or whether she has just been better in her delivery, but I do see a more natural and animated way of speaking from her the season, particularly in her problem-solving scenes of this episode.

As someone with a doctorate, I can tell you that this is absolutely untrue. Just to get accepted into our master's program, we needed to have graduated magna or summa cum laude. And getting accepted did not guarantee completion: some people didn't make it through the master's thesis, while others who successfully completed their master's degree nonetheless did not make it all the way to completing their doctorates. It was all about talent and hard work, and had nothing to do with money or the mere passage of time. Although Kelsey seems extraordinarily self centered, and Ashley appears quite immature, intelligence is quite a different thing. Nothing I've seen on screen from either of them indicates that they did not have the brains and work ethic to earn an advanced degree.

From reading through this thread, it seems that the opinion that the family was not insensitive to Edith's reaction at the news of Michael's murder boils down to a few points, so I'd like to address them one at a time: (I'm skipping Mary and referring only to the rest of them.) #1 "Edith's family wasn't insensitive to her grief because they didn't know the extent of her relationship." I have to disagree for two reasons. First, if one family member sees another taking bad news harder than expected, I don't think a loving family member's reaction would be, "I don't understand why she is this upset, therefore she is wrong in being this upset," but rather, "I don't understand why she is this upset, maybe she was closer to the person than I thought." Second, the family did know something about Michael: they knew that, at a minimum, he was an employer with whom Edith enjoyed working, and that she liked him enough to see him outside of work, including a few visits at Shrimpy and Susan's and at Downton Abbey. Not to mention that they also discovered that he had left his newspaper to her. Sure, they didn't know the whole story, but they did know enough to understand that this would affect her deeply. #2 "Edith shuts her family out, therefore they can't be more kind to her." I disagree with this, because I find the reverse to be true: Edith's family has been shutting her out (not always, but in significant ways) since season one, long before she ever met Michael, and also while she was seeing him socially. A few examples: Cora: She is the main person responsible for helping her daughters to find good marriage partners. In the two seasons that Mary was unattached (in season two she had Richard, in season 3 she was married to Matthew, and in season 5 she has been continuing a relationship started in season 4) five men were brought to Downton as partners for Mary: the duke, Matthew (brought for other reasons,too, but in several episodes was definitely intended by Cora and others for Mary), Evelyn. Anthony, and Tony. Despite Edith never being married, no man was ever brought to Downton for her. Robert: He has openly criticized Edith on numerous occasions in front of anyone within earshot: back in season one, when Anthony invited her to a concert, Robert criticized her for accepting before asking Anthony what type of music would be played; he criticized Edith at the dining table for writing for the paper and while in Scotland called her an amateur; he publicly snubbed Michael at Downton parties; and responded to Edith's idea of sponsoring the "Drewe child" by saying they'd probably find her to be a nuisance. And he went to Anthony behind Edith's back in order to get him to break off with her. (I don't excuse Anthony for what he did; I'm just referring here to things Robert has said/done that would make Edith feel she couldn't confide in him. And trying to sabotage the only romantic relationship she had had up to the point was a big one.) Her parents, either by overlooking her (Cora) or alternating between overlooking her and noticing her only long enough to criticize her (Robert) have consistenly given her indication that she is not important. So I don't think it's plausible that she would confide in them. So I don't think it's the case that she didn't confide in them, therefore they can't be more supportive, but rather that, their long history of not being supportive of her led her to believe that she can't confide in them. #3 "Edith was wrong to expect that the family should mourn Michael like they mourned Matthew." I don't think she expected them to do anything of the sort: there's a huge difference between expecting the family to go into formal mourning and expecting them to be respectful of her grief by toning down things for a few days. I don't think she was out of line for being hurt at the fuss they made over Mary's hair, and their poor timing of planning a jolly outing. She wasn't asking them for even 5% of what was done after Matthew's death, and the consideration they gave her was less than what they gave to Sybil when she learned of the war death of a mere acquaintance. #4 "Even the nice/open-minded people disagreed with Edith." If this were a reality program, I might agree that there was more to the story if the nice people thought Edith was being unfair. But all these fictional characters are written by the same man. And one of the themes I've noticed since season one is that even people who are nice to everyone else often find Edith repulsive, and even when Edith does something very similar to what someone else has done, she ends up being ridiculed simply because Edith is suppposed to be the object of contempt. (As a recent example, of all the people who asked Violet about the prince, the only one that Violet snapped at was Edith.) I'm not saying that Edith hasn't done some bad things in her day, but even when she's the doing the same thing as everyone else (or something that the viewers might consider pretty reasonable), she gets scorned by other characters in a way that is inconsistent with what else the show tells us. The show sometimes makes Edith wrong simply because she's Edith, which I find to be extremely poor and unbelievable writing. Edited because I wrote "Isobel" when I meant "Violet."

Would you believe I actually said "Amen, sister!" when I read this? Then I realized your name was "amensisterfriend." Perfectly chosen username! That reminds me of an unpopular opinion: although Matthew, Mary, and numerous posters have all said that Matthew brought out a softer side of her, I never saw it. Ever. The only person I ever thought brought out a softer side to Mary was Lavinia.

Okay, I will step into my flame-proof suit and accept your challenge. I don't give a hoot about Isis! I think including a cute dog on a show is a lazy way to gain audience interest. I don't want anything bad to happen to her, I just don't want to see her. I think the show has devoted more time to the "Robert likes Isis more than he likes people" story than they have spent accusing Mr. Bates of murder, and that's an awful lot of time! I feel like every line of dialogue about the dog is a line that could have been better spent on one of the people. And if we had an "unlike" button, I realize I would break the world record for the number of "unlikes." But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

It's even worse, with respect to the names I bolded Isobel's latest beau is evidently another Richard: "Dickie" Merton. And there are at least 3 more Charles/Charlies: Charles Grigg (of the Cheerful Charlies), Ethel's baby Charlie, and his father, Charles. I think it's realistic that an occasional name or two is repeated, but to repeat so many names when there are other popular names of the times that aren't used (e.g. Henry, Myrtle) seems a bit lazy.

Although I agree with a lot of your thoughts in the above post, I have to disagree about what I bolded. I got the impression early in season one, that, while Edith picked on Mary whenever Mary acted superior to Edith, Mary picked on Edith whenever Edith merely tried to act as Mary's equal. And the conversation they had during Anthony Strallen's first visit seemed to confirm my interpretation. As Edith was sitting all happy in the drawing room after she and Anthony hit it off at dinner, Mary made some comment that I forget to which Edith replied that "you can't have every prize." Up to that point, Mary had had every prize: no male visitor to Downton had been interested in Edith, yet Matthew, Evelyn, Kamal Pamuk, and, even Anthony (intially) were all interested in Mary. When they entered the drawing room, Mary and Edith were tied on that particular evening: Edith had enjoyed Anthony's interest, while Mary had enjoyed Matthew's. That was fine with Edith, but Mary couldn't stand it. So when the men joined them, Mary went about luring Anthony (a "booby" and "bore" in whom she had no interest) and she suceeded. Edith was delighted with her one prize, yet Mary had to have hers and Edith's too. . And I think the patttern has continued. I've always felt that Edith would be perfectly content if Mary considered her to be her equal, whereas Mary seems to find repulsive the idea of Edith being her equal. Mary simply has to be seen as Edith's superior, and I think that's the main reason she continues to pick on Edith more than Edith picks on her.

My thoughts on this episode: The Good: I loved Rose and Atticus together, and I think that the way they met -- laughing, running in the pouring rain -- was the most fun way two people have ever met on this show. I also liked how Rose's friendly and well-intentioned questions, and Atticus' initial vague answers, first gave the appearance that his family might be hiding some misdeeds, only for their tragic history to be later revealed. The look of surprise and happiness on his face when he realized that Rose would not be prejudiced against him was delightful. I think that the show did as good a job as they possibly could by using Rose's character to more-or-less replace Sybil. Both women are free of prejudice but for different reasons. It seemed that Sybil wanted a better life for women and the working class because of deep moral convictions, whereas the fun-loving Rose has enjoyed the company of a working class gardner, a black jazz musician, and now a Jewish banker because embracing men of all backgrounds gives her so many more dancing partners! Despite not being as deep as Sybil, I find her friendly and kind-hearted and I hope this relationship is a long one. It was great seeing Mr. Molesley and Miss Baxter having more chats this episode. I just love them! He has been a pillar of strength for her, and she sees good qualities in him that no one else -- including him -- sees. On more than one occasion she has given him sincere compliments, and each time he's had this pleasantly surprised "Well, I never thought of myself that way before" look on his face. I'm glad to see that they're giving Violet more extended scenes, particulary with Isobel. For a while, Violet's contributions in scenes were limited to saying a brief zinger at dinner or a quick snap at Isobel. She was becoming a mere caricature of the character she used to be. But this season is much better, like this episode's scene of her and Isobel discussing a variety of different topics, all while doing a jigsaw puzzle together. Working on a task together! Who could have ever predicted this in season one? I do wish she wasn't so manipulative about Isobels's love life, but I like how more complex and interesting and friendly their relationship has become. This was the first time I ever liked one of Robert and Tom's private chats. Robert's previous compliments to Tom about how "far" he's come sounded like an adult patting a lad on the head for moving toward the "right side." This time, though, Robert sounded like a man who was sincerely admiring another man's ability to see both sides of things. The Bad: Why did Tom kiss Sarah on the lips after he did such a nice job of politely but clearly letting her know he was not intrerested in a romance? I thought that was very out of character for him. Please, please, please, don't let Miss Mabel Lane Fox take Mary's leftovers. Just the fact that they presented the possibility makes me nervous that another woman's romantic happiness will end up revolving around what makes Mary happy. It was horrible enough that Lavinia gave up her will to live -- and then sent a Ouija board message from beyond the grave -- in order for Matthew and Mary to be together. Please don't let Miss Fox take back a man who broke their engagement to pursue Mary, just so that Mary will get to move onto her next romantic partner without the "petty annoyance" of having to deal with any of Tony's remaining hurt feelings.

Brilliant! Although I agree with most of the above post from which I took this clip, I have to disagree that they "gave" him a job. The family was in desperate straights at the time, and benefitted greatly from both Tom's prior knowledge and his continued skill at the position. The Crawleys generally see themselves as "giving" people jobs, but from what we have seen, they often get back far more than they give, even if they don't acknowledge it. A few points I don't think anyone has yet stated about the Mr. Bricker situation: I did not see that Cora actually flirted. I don't believe married people should ever flirt. Ever. But even if he genuinely believed she was flirting and that she wanted him romantically (whether the misunderstanding was 100% his fault, 100% her fault, or somewhere in between) why did he feel justified in going "from zero to 60?" in one step? Why didn't he attempt to hold her hand, or even kiss her? Why did he think that the next logical step would be to go, uninvited, to her bedroom? So I guess I see her as blameless for 2 reasons: First, because I don't think she flirted. And second, if he did misunderstand her, a small gesture like attempting to hold her hand, etc, would have given her the opportunity to completely make herself clear, long before he ever walked in her room, at night, with her in her nightgown. ETA: Fellow posters, sorry about the ugly formatting. I did something wrong with the quotes, and don't know how to fix it any better.

I'm not surprised at all that Ashley I's idols are the Kadarshians. From the few episodes of that show that I've seen, it seems like "The Kardashians" epitomizes two (very sad in my opinion) growing trends among young women: an awful lot of what they do is done in order to please men, rather than themselves; and fulfilling a man's desires, rather than (or in addition to) their own desires makes them feel powerful. So whether it is changing your body in big and small ways to attract/please men (the Kardashians, and evidently Ashley I.), doing things sexually because that's what the man wants (Kardashians) or abstaining from sex because you think that's what a man wants (Ashley I.) it's all the same. Note that Ashley talks about her lack of sexual experience only in terms of whether she thinks it will attract Chris -- not because it's something that is comfortable for her. I do find that very Kardashian-esque. I find it very sad that all this focus on doing/being what a man wants, ironically, tends to make Kardashians and the young women who emulate them feel more, rather than less, powerful.