Bridgerton - did the sex add or detract? (spoilers)

The older I get, and the more explicitly violent and sexual films get, the more I just fast-forward until they are talking again. I never found film porn erotic, and if you don’t find it erotic, it’s just awkward. I also don’t find filmed violence ever worth watching. It’s limiting.

I didn’t watch it and I don’t intend to but I follow several historical costumers on YouTube and they are all pissed at the idiocy of tight lacing a corset for a regency gown. Seriously, regency gowns have empire waists so cinching at the natural waist is moronic since it wouldn’t even show. Also, they apparently have actresses wearing stays over bare skin without a chemise. You really do not want to piss off a historical costumer, and particularly not with inappropriate/ill-fitting/poorly designed corsets or stays.

Yeah - my wife does Rev War re-enactment/costume, and always comments on such things. But this show was so over-the-top that it would be hard to pick on any singe wardrobe inaccuracy.

This show has no pretence of being historically accurate - it’s Jane Austin meets Disney, and very pleasurable for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love history, and it’s accurate portrayal in films pretending to show real events, but this show is not that.

I would’ve thought the Duke’s open neck shirts and BRIGHT red velvet jackets were more scandalous to historical costume fanatics than an incorrectly worn corset.

Did they ever explain the significance of the brooch the Duke wore all the time (while dressed)?

I’m not sure they ever explained it - or I missed it - but Lady FitzGoogle tells me it’s his late mother’s.

I think it’s gratuitous; I’m not in any way offended by it, in fact I think it’s probably pretty well done as far as onscreen portrayals of sex go, but I just found myself wanting those scenes to fade so we see the story progress (I guess that’s another way of saying those scenes didn’t typically progress the story a whole lot).
The casting did initially give me pause to wonder if (given the era where this was set) it was just glossing over the historical reality of slavery, but later on it became apparent that this was an alternative history where things had played out differently.

Yeah - I pretty much viewed them as “filler”, thinking, “I get the idea. Ya got nothing ELSE to show/tell?”

As far as I can tell, the season covered the entire first book (and apparently brought in stuff from the other books forward)… so probably they didn’t have anything else to show/tell (Romance novels tend to have a lot of sex scenes).

I’m nothing close to a prude myself. And I guess I like my porn as porn and my drama as drama. When they are mixed, it usually seems to be done poorly.

I found The Outlander to violate my rule. There is a lot of sex there, and it’s just boring. I find myself wanting it to end so I can just get on with the story.

[God I hope I’m just not getting old!!!]

Watched Bridgerton and loved it. I guess it was a shock for folks if they were used to Masterpiece Theatre and didn’t see that on the period dramas. I recall a promo on PBS about how steamy their shows can get, and the most was a dressed woman (maybe in her nightgown?) getting into a bathtub with a man bathing. I wish I can recall that series. Chuckle.

Not sure if this is a spoiler, but the Bridgerton books someone mentioned how the bed scenes were fun and delightful in the novels.

I read something similar, but it was “Pride & Prejudice with stairway sex.”

I didn’t think the sex was necessarily gratuitous. Reading this thread before watching, I was thinking there’d be…more. Maybe not more sex, but it didn’t strike me as anywhere near softcore porn. I mean, aside from the Duke’s ass, not much was actually “shown.” Lot of love scenes, but not necessarily gratuitous.

I did find it interesting that the climax of the series was literally a man climaxing inside of a woman.

Funny how you remember things from a long time ago. When I was a kid, my mom generally watched MT. Some time when I was pretty young - maybe in grade school in the early 70s, we were watching MT and an actress removed her shirt. The woman was just washing up - nothing sexual. But I was SHOCKED to be seeing boobies while in the same room as my parents! :smiley:

I my be the exception here, but I liked the sex in Bridgerton, and furthermore, I like sex in TV shows in general. I think that if done properly, sex and nudity can make just about everything better. To me, saying “Why do you need to see T&A on TV - you can just watch porn!” is like saying, “Why does Star Wars need that John Williams score - you can just listen to classical music!” Sex makes me happy. Why wouldn’t I want to be happy?

Really? I felt like all the sex scenes were quickies - that’s this woman’s perspective. And some (like on the stairs) felt thrown in and contrived, but overall, I still thought the series was fun. I got a kick out of the queen’s various wigs.

I’m no expert on period costumes, but I’m pretty sure the white wedding dress was out of place. It’s my understanding that prior to Queen Victoria’s wedding in 1840, wedding dresses were more likely to be colored fabric. But then I didn’t view this as a documentary - it’s just a fun diversion during the plague.

It was a bit too much for me, because it got predictable and boring and stopped moving the story along. Lots of TV shows are worse, though, so you get used to it.

They played fast and loose with the fashions in the show, but I didn’t mind it for that - it was considerably more colourful than real life. Now, if it has been a Jane Austin adaptation, I would feel totally different.

Yes, from what I recall from British history documentaries, Queen Victoria created the tradition of wearing a white wedding gown when she married Prince Albert.