The idea that she is treated as a sex object that can be called upon for usage is gross and demeaning. Yet, the statement is written extremely casually, as if it's completely normal (which for the time it may be, but it still sends the wrong message). The sexualization implies that she (stepmom) is there for the sole purpose to pleasure the man.
Classmate Responses:
1.) I think it is completely objectifying women and making it appear that this is their sole purpose. It also made me think of the whole kind of "gold digger" concept where the woman is with the man for monetary or another type of gain and in return is expected to be their to pleasure the man whenever he calls for her. It automatically puts the male in the place of having the upper hand.
2.) I can see where you're coming from, and I certainly agree that this is a difficult passage to read, but I think it's more of just a time period thing. Kings and queens didn't share chambers, and the queen was the kind's property- especially in societies where women couldn't inherit (although this isn't one of those). I think this is why it's spoken of so casually- it is a casual thing. Weren't all women of this time gold diggers anyway? They didn't exactly have the ability to start their own business.
Yes, I agree with the second person's comment. Although we may view this situation as demeaning to women now, in the medieval ages it was considered a norm for a King to call upon his mistress or queen.
ReplyDeleteI think what is interesting in this line however is the part where she says she takes her pleasure with him. So although we do not know what kind of pleasures she is either recieving or giving, we may assume that she enjoys it and therefore nothing has been forced upon her. In otherwords she willingly goes to the King's chamber. In this way I do not think it is demeaning.