No, but only because it’s a fiction and you were raise with different views. But do understand that it was extremely common for affairs to happen during that time because not a lot of people married for love, at least not in the upper class. So just because she participated doesn’t mean she deserved what was coming for her, she doesn’t owe anything to no one, except a child because of the fact that that was what marriages were for. And that man, we didn’t know a lot about him, but from the little bits he wasn’t a good person and I’m sure he would have turn to violence with or without her affairs. Also I don’t think she has multiples, I think it was just the one with ml.
i dont understand why is it only that woman being blamed for it clearly that man also had affair with her knowing she was married .. tallking about double standard society...
I do get the part with having multiple Affairs in that time. With or Without Love but she chose to do that especially to the one man that her husband apparently hates, I guess. And she's not taking account for that. It's her fault to not just his. I agree that the husband terrible for the abusement towards that woman but She has to take responsibility that she was having an affair with his rival or enemy or whatever. She has to have known that. Her husband may not care about the other partners, but she has to see that he might not agree to that man that she was with. She's a victim but then she's not.
Okay I understand, but she didn’t know he was his rival, she thought he, her husband, was going to be indifferent. So I mean, she definitely needs to take accountability for her affairs, I don’t disagree on that, but why am saying Is that from how she explained it there was no indication that her husband cared until he found out. Basically, I don’t think she knew that it was gonna be a problem. (Also your last sentence, I don’t fully agree with that, but I don’t know why, I guess I’m more hung over the damage he left than her affair. Anyhow in the end, no one can truly win with this genre)
If the husband is not in love with her, it is not a crime of passion. His torture of her is a salve to wounded pride, and is still torture of someone who is is physically and socially inferior to him, so it is a form of bullying the weak, i.e. rampant cowardice. Not only is it torture, the inflicting of pain, it is also a form of long term psychological torture/revenge, to give someone a mark of shame that they cannot get rid of. Unless she had tortured and murdered their children or tied him drunk to the bed and had all the randy young men of the area rape him, there is no possible excuse for his behaviour. In those days, life was definitely unfair to women of all stations, as they had nearly as few rights as slaves. If he wanted to have revenge, all he had to do was divorce her (no 50/50 property laws) and kick her to the curb. She would have died alone and in want. Branding her was cruel and psychopathic behaviour. Patriarchal society mores are responsible for most of the most egregious injustices our world has seen.
Page 102 I think her name is Lady Sarah. I think it's funny how she blames him for what happened to her when Her husband branded her. she brought it upon herself When she was having the affair in the first place. She has seen that her husband's not going to accept all the affair she has with other men cuz I'm pretty sure her husband doesn't like certain men. In a way I feel bad for her, but then I don't does that make me a bad person?