Guys, this film was gross


Hello, is anyone else glad Cyrano and Roxanne didn't get together.....they were cousins....what kind of sick person loves his cousin......

reply

In those times that was okay. Theodore Roosevelt married his cousin Eleanor, and he was elected President of the United States, and that wasn't that long ago. Besides if thats all you were thinking about when you saw this movie then you are stupid! It was a story about romance, and poetry, and tragedy NOT about them being related!


reply

Indeed, in most countries it is still legal to marry your cousin.
As tushi says, I think you were rather missing out on this story if that's all you were thinking about.

reply

Theodore Roosevelt married his cousin Eleanor, and he was elected President of the United States,

That was Franklin.

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

Albert Einstein married Elsa Löwenthal, who was his first cousin maternally and second cousin paternally. There is nothing wrong with this at all; it is love.

"Jai Guru Deva, Om"

reply

back then people didn't take a bath

reply



I don't think the Catholic Church outlawed it.




reply

Just because something is "gross" now, doesn't mean it has always been. Even today many people marry their cousins. I don't really have a problem with it. While I wouldn't do it myself, if someone wants to, who cares? Many famous people known for their brilliance and military prowess either married their cousin or were born to two people who were cousins. Just accept it and move on, there are bigger things in this movie to think about :)

reply

Actually, the word "cousin" does not necessarily mean that they have the same grand-parents... It just means that they are related. They could in fact be cousins at the 3rd, 4th, 5th etc... degree and still call each other "cousin"...

reply

In real life, Cyrano actually also had a male lover.

reply

The actaul Cyrano was everything he was in this film, only with a normal nose and homosexual. There was never a Roxane, and while there was a Christian, it is doubtful he helped him woo any ladies.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

reply

Yeah, and Checkov claimed that Cyrano was Russian too.

reply

[deleted]

I am not that much into incestous relationship but as a writer I like using it so long it is fiction but in real life well I have mix feelings toward the issues especially when it is an enforced incest.

reply

Yes but forced sexual activity is wrong in general. I used to be overly moralistic when I was young but now I don't care as long as people don't hurt others (I have had arguments but I an not proud of them and I would actually intend to hurt anyone) and go through life with a heart full of love.

"Jai Guru Deva, Om"

reply

My modo is simple this; Love is wonderful as long as it doesn't have anything to do with children, animals, or worst thought of all; a corps (Ugh!)

reply

That is almost exactly my moto!

"Jai Guru Deva, Om"

reply

More importantly, no enforcement or use of drugs to entrape someone into sex, if it is all consensual then I am okay with it.

reply

I agree KingAngantyr, and besides it is an interesting theme in many Mythologies, not all of which demonise it (like Arthurian literature does).

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply

cousin also meant a close family friend. It did not necessarily mean that they were related.

reply

[deleted]

But it's legal to have sexual intercourse and marry cousins in most countries: the UK, France...etc... as it is not seen as incest unless it's a sister, mother, aunt...etc...

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

reply

[deleted]

Holly, she is only his cousin (infact she may not technically be a literal cousin but a member of the same family, even very distant).

"Jai Guru Deva, Om"

reply

[deleted]

Don't be so prude:

1. It seems they were cousin by marriage so nothing very amazing here;

2. It's not a criminal offence to marry your cousin;

3. Who cares really ?;

4. At that time, all noble people where getting married with their cousins, especially King's and Queen's kids;

5. I would done it if was in love with one of my cousin.

reply

[deleted]

You need to understand that when I'm saying "don't be so prude" it doesn't mean you HAVE to sleep with your cousin in order not to be prude ...
If you don't want to do it, it's just fine with me.

But judging cousins that get married and starting thread saying "it's gross", then it's prudish overreaction.

In my opinion, we should just mind our own business in the first place.

reply

[deleted]

Before all, I never said I was King or anything. I just gave my opinion.

First, my initial comment was targeting the person who started the thread and not you at all. So you should have no reason to react that way. But apparently it's seems like a very touchy subject for you and you decided to take it very personal.

Second, well I checked in the dictionnary and I interpreted the definition of "prude" I found there to fit for the initial thread starters so I used it. Of course, I'm not going to explain every word I use in my comment so I suggest you just take a dictionnary and read the exact definition there. That's the reason I used that word. You disagree with the word in this context ? Well it's your opinion, not mine. Then explain us what prude is it for you. You know, if there is a word for it, we need to believe there is a way to be prude. In my opinion, saying cousin marriage "[are] gross] is prude, that's what I'm thinking.


Third, you're using a very tricky syllogism to say I'm immoral.
Basically : "I'm prudish. You are not. Then you are immoral because you're not prudish". Failed.
I explained 4-5 posts before why I thought cousins relations where not "gross" (read "immoral"). Go see that.
I gave 5 reasons why it's not gross (immoral) in my opinion.
5 reasons why I think if you're saying it's gross (or it's immoral), it's just because you're prudish.
Read me carefully here :
I didn't say you're prudish if you don't like it.
I said you're prudish if you start a thread saying "it's gross".
I said you're prudish if you can't accept others can have these relations.
Can you make the difference ?
I'm sorry if you can't.


In my opinion, we should just mind our own business in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is quite hypocritical statement and hilarious to boot, seeing how you DIDNT mind your own business IN THE FIRST PLACE by remaining quiet and not answering the thread, PRESSED an opinion on someone that didn't ask your opinion and

Again, I can hardly agree with your argumentation and here's why.
I didn't start this topic so I did mind my own business according to me.
I didn't come on the forum starting touchy subject saying "cousins relations are great" or "cousins relations are gross". I didn't do that.
What I did is I saw someone who started a topic in one of these way.
I couldn't agree with such a statement because I disagree .
May I ?
Thanks.
At the exact moment someone didn't "mind his own business in the first place" you are not bound anymore. You have the right to react. Moreover, you have the right to react if you disagree.


It is also a very silly statement seeing how this is a thread made about a fictional work of art where opinions are welcomed.

While it's true the "original" subject of the site is a "fictional work of art where opinions are welcomed" I will respectfully tell you the actual subject of this thread (cousins relations) has nothing to do with art. It's all about judgment, moral and sexuality. Moreover, according to you, my opinion should just be an other opinion that should be welcomed.


Please leave me alone.

1. As I said, my first comment on this thread didn't target you at all so you're no victime here.
2. I stay polite and compose. I'm just expressing my opinion. Apparently, you're the one taking this opinion very personal and emotionally react heavily.
3. If you don't enjoy my strikes-back, just stop to answer to me.

Enjoy.




You're acting like if "prude" was a pure and evil insult while it's not at all.

reply

[deleted]

Wow, you have no sense of conversation.
Reported.

reply

still that implies inbreeding which never really happened

Even first cousins (in the modern definition) only share 1/8 of their chromosomes on average. It takes many generations of this level of inbreeding to result in significant consequences. If the common grandparent had a dangerous recessive gene (technically an allele), there's a 1/32 chance that an offspring of the cousins (a great-grandchild of the common ancestor) would end up with two copies of the dangerous allele and express the bad results. Unless it's a very rare allele, this could happen in normal breeding with no inbreeding anyway.

With second cousins, the chance drops to 1/128. Actually it's even a little less (in both cases) since a man and a woman cannot share the Y chromosome. With only 45 chromosomes to possibly share, the chances are good that second cousins (one male and one female) share no chromosomes at all.

So in general the dangers of a single case of inbreeding are far less then generally believed. It's many generations of inbreeding, as happened with the royal houses of Europe in centuries past, that raises those dangers greatly.

Edward

reply

[deleted]