Even I saw the first season of this. Daisy was a naive female teenager with entirely natural ‘yearnings’ that may or may not as yet have taken a sexual nature.
Imo, she objectifies/idealises Thomas like later generations did Elvis or The Beatles, or One Direction today. All that raw emotion literally has to go somewhere …
Almost entirely inexperienced? Why just almost?
Because she’s been around people so probably is aware that sex happens and babies get made. She’s probably seen people kiss and probably has had warm feelings at times about men she likes.
Exactly, and her knowledge of fundamental sex facts probably comes not only (or even primarily) from observing humans. She lives in the country on an estate that maintains livestock, and presumably has lived in this locality most or all of her life, so she and all the rest of the Downton servants are almost certainly aware of the basics of mammalian reproduction.
So Claire should not get all excited thinking that I might have been hinting at some personal sexual experience on Daisy’s part. Ain’t none. Doesn’t mean you can’t still have hopes for the future, though.
And she’d know that “bad girls” who have sex out of wedlock and get pregnant have no future. There were very few married scullery maids. It was expected that you stayed a virgin until you were married, and after you were married you’d be supported by your husband and raise your children, not work as a servant. Anna and Bates marrying would be pretty unusual and required permission from their employer.
StG
Is there a crush that isn’t a sexual attraction? I thought that was the very definition of “crush”.
Well even in my late teens I would have childish crushes on men simply because I found them handsome, not because I wanted to have sex with them.
“Sexual attraction” and “sexual intentions” don’t necessarily go together. I think it’s safe to say that a crush based on finding someone handsome ultimately has its roots in sexual attraction, even if it’s not accompanied by overtly sexual feelings or desires.
Sometimes people get crushes based on finding someone really impressive or interesting or admirable, and that can be unrelated to sexual attraction. But if you’re crushing because you consider the crush attractive, then yeah, it’s fundamentally about attraction.
^ Hence use of the word ‘yearning’ earlier.
How do we know Thomas didn’t take Daisy’s virginity, for example after the fair in episode 4? Sure, he was gay, but I could see him managing to get it up in order to torment William even more. He was looking particularly smug when he encountered Bates in the hallway, right before Bates shoved him up against the wall and threatened to punch him, and Daisy spent the rest of the episode in ThomasLand, going on to Mrs. Patmore about how lovely he was.
Because if that happened, since these aren’t real people, it would’ve been part of the story.
These aren’t real people. Nothing happens that we don’t see.
So after Daisy kisses William and he asks her “does this mean you’ll be my girl?” why didn’t she just say no?
How do we know that William and Daisy didn’t do the bingo bango bongo the night of the concert (after he and Matthew returned from being MIA)? After all, despite how often she said she didn’t love him, she seemed awfully concerned about him. Even though the house rules were that servants couldn’t engage in hanky panky, especially unmarried ones, might those rules have been lifted for them since they were engaged and William was going to be shipped off to war again soon?
Because that would be utterly out of character for Daisy. Plus, if they did that, why would the writers create such an elaborate backstory and not show it?
Seriously- you know these are simply characters? They don’t go off and do things while we’re not looking…
So would they get in trouble for it if they did or would Mrs Hughes give them a break since they were engaged?
Well… part of suspending disbelief in a work of fiction is inferring a wider reality to the depicted world, realistically-ongoing lives for the characters. We kind of have to assume that a lot goes on that we don’t see, but we trust the show to take us to the good bits. Certainly important things ‘happen’ off-screen in DA–but we’re told about them, one way or another.
Does that mean you think they may have done it offscreen?
No.
Definitey. Like so many of those WW1 soldiers William died in pain, for no good reason, hopelessly naive, and a virgin.
A truely extraordinary percentage of the adult male population either died or suffered serious physical and/or mental trauma in that four year period. In any statistical analysis WW2 pales in comparison.
In that sense I wish Fellowes had made better use of the William character. Sure we learned of the impact of losing an only son on the father - as well as some other bits and pieces - but if William was an allegory for the wider suffering … I dunno … what happened to that generation of men was unspeakable.