Dear Helen

Since I agree with just about everything you say, this post would be redundant, if not for one contrary opinion I hold - regarding your on-topic comment! You said:

An other point--she is called "Maid Marion"--Not Mrs (madam, mistress)-- which implies she is not married or "troth" to Robin-- so her actions are hard to define as "unfaithful". Should/does Robin have the right to deside what Marion gets to do with her body--just because he is a man?
If one gets married-- and make a promise to be "faithful"-- and "foreswears all others"-- okay, then she is breaking a vow-- but is she is Maid Marion? (the story is unclear as to whether Marion and Robin are just a "couple" or if they are "husband & wife"-- )


1. I do not lay great store by formal marriage - a relationship, with mutual acceptance of responsibilities towards it, is a relationship whether or not it has been formally contracted to.

2. If we claim that Marion had the simple right to do what she wanted with her body - without regard to the feelings of her notional partner in the relationship - then surely Robin had the right to reject her without regard to her feelings too? My point has been (from the start of this extended discussion) that Marion's actions are not necessarily blameworthy in isolation, but in the context of a relationship with Robin she seems to have either:

a. ignored his feelings
b. been unable to predict them (which appears unlikely, since she was reluctant to tell him about what she had done).

To that extent, I feel that she is guilty - she took upon herself control of an issue that affected both of them, and while she had the absolute right to do so, she has no right, thereafter, to claim that the relationship should continue, or continue as before.

cheer

the sunshine warrior