Yes, it made for a delightful tension. How much of it was deliberate is hard to say. Was she aware of herself? Was she charmed or was she contemplating toying with the old boy? He handled it remarkably I think and addressed it within his responses although she probably didn't anticipate the sharp shooting responses. Towards the end she is literally tapping to attention her thigh. I certainly hope she wasn't a cruel one. Sigh

Well she certainly is promoting that interest. This is the magic in which graves speaks. The truth is at any given moment she could appear drab and even not particularily attractive but tone of voice, the way one lays their head on their hand ,a tilt to the torso etc, can go a long way in creating a cosmic illusion . Lol. When in actual fact what is represented is just another couple of ridiculous cartoon characters. Gather rosebuds as ye may. Avoid addictions but dont be a damned fool. Lol

Graves having trouble with one of his eyebrows. She is really projecting and he is trying not to notice those legs that go up to her neck. One squirms I suppose as the camera rolls.

Strange that no one seems to know who she is or was. By name, I mean.

@@IntlPublications Sandra Harris?

Your admiration would be vaguely admirable, except that you made the risible and fatuous claim that he's a god (presumably purposeful to you because you emphasized it). No man who has ever lived can or should be called a god, let alone this man, who seems bland in interview, and is a very bland poet (which is how he wanted to view himself). I can think of only two poems of his which are memorable and they're both six or seven lines long. "The White Goddess" is very suggestive. Admittedly I've not read "I, Claudius" - which he dismissed as a pot boiler, though I'm imagining it has to be better than his poetry.

@@jimnewcombe7584 you really dont like graves do you

I would appreciate it if you could explain why his preference for womanliness over feminine is so insightful.

​@@bedstuyrover I'm not sure how he sees it as insightful either, but I'll endeavour to offer a potential answer of what I think Robert Grave's views might be. I'm a little lazy so I'll rely on a quotation from Wikipedia on some Latin history on the time of Claudius I, of whom I assume Grave had an extensive knowledge of, and of his time period and generation's laws and virtues regarding normative behaviours associated to women; ''In the Republican era, Cicero offered Claudia's exceptional reputation for pudicitia (sexual virtue) as the moral opposite to Clodia's, to undermine the latter's moral fitness to offer testimony against his client; and to accentuate the infamy of Clodia's brother Clodius, accused of deliberate sacrilege at Magna Mater's festival. The emperor Claudius claimed Claudia as an ancestor and may have promoted her cult, alongside that of Magna Mater and her divine consort, Attis'' and also; ''Roman histories and stories describe Quinta Claudia as castissima femina (purest or most virtuous woman) in Rome'' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinta_Claudia I too, am curious about this as you are. The early idea of the ''castissima femina'' offer a kind of exemplar of the Roman republic's idea of the virtuous woman, and here there are specific features of her attitudes and requirements of her morals that are incontradiction with the more Anglo-Saxon, as Graves sees it, connotation of the word ''sorcery'' with ''womanliness'', the bewitching and very morally ambigious nature that entails as compared to the chastity associated with the Roman maiden. The Roman castissima femina Quinta Claudia did not in her role as ideal femina actually invert the Roman patriarchal dominance exemplified in the ''optimus vir'', the ideal man, but was there as a kind of guarantor of his virtue by acting as his auxiliary. That is why no matter how powerful women could become in the Roman republic as opposed to past societies, their roles remained those of performing auxiliary male duties; the raising of armies, the printing of coin with her likeness on it, like Fulvia during her marriage to Mark Antony.

11:26

you should read his books man

He was the real Merlin.

Love it when that kind of thing happens.

You've heard of him now...took your time.

Cathy Newman: "So what you're saying, Mr Graves, is that white men are privileged and that WW1 wouldn't have happened if we'd elected Mr Corbyn?" Robert Graves: "?".

I think Robert Graves said 'deuteropotami', which would mean something like "twice across the river (Styx?)", but I could be wrong.

​@@sotony7483He means the 'deuteropotmai' or the "double-fated" in ancient Greek mythology.

From what I gather, when he was growing up that was considered a fine and civilized way to speak.

That's your conditioning talking....just as his accent is his.

Sandra Harris, different person I think.

Well I agree to this extent: Freud said we are all bisexual. But there are massive differences between men and women; see the compilation by Julia Tourianski steemit.com/men/@bravetheworld/50-real-differences-between-men-and-women

@@jfreeman3978 Spoken like a true woman ('female' if you prefer to sound like a veterinary patient) of a certain type, one who bought her mind at the plate glass campus bookstore, fit it all in her bag, and walked grimly home. Madam, you've wasted your years and that's putting it nicely.

The problem isn't that they "act like men", it's that they act like stupid men.

@@stephaniebarron52 Stupid men, at times yes. At other times, men who simply don't exist except in crude stereotypes. Kind of like the colonial who assumes implausibly every last cliched characteristic of the people of the mother country (e.g. the New Zealander of lore, tedious or charming according to one's taste, who's "more English than the English"). This is frequently the characteristic also of drag queens who, being not to the manner born, make some people cringe. Others, of course, really like that sort of thing.

Freud was a charlatan, Graves? The real deal (as was Lawrence)

@Michael Marlowe Nice one that's great, appreciate it boy

Nobody seems to care, which I find odd.

Sandra Harris, I just learned further below.

@@IntlPublications thanks so much.

"I'm all agen it" I'm all against it. Guessing it's quote from Burns.

@@johnpowys5755 or Groucho Marx

Sandra Harris.

Yes, indeed, very dishy - love the way she says ' You have confused me a little bit , there' at about 18.43. No idea who she is, though.

I was just thinking that. Damn.

Here she is again... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gK9xibRelbCRf3U.html

Her name is Sandra Harris

Mostly men commenting here, as always, and the women are mostly critical of the woman. While the men praise her. Is she just a comical creature, or a complete human being, like him?

He was gorgeous when he was young.

EgoShredder Now, you say sex is just a a means to an end, the end being procreation and yet I can think of many reasons why sex can be "spiritual, deep, intuitive, warm and life affirming, etc". Sex is intuitive as it allows for the individuals to express their love with equal measure (yet this is dependant upon disposition and circumstance) and not only this but it allows for the freedom of sexual pleasure and what follows, namely, sexual liberation and a life affirming state of affairs due to the very nature of expressing what may have been previously repressed. Furthermore sex can also be universal as the majority of species partake with such engagements, furthermore sex can be literally deep and figuratively deep as consequently one feels a depth of emotion, a well spring of several emotions in fact when and after having sex, as for the spirituality of sexuality and the soul nourishing qualities I am not apt to comment for I do not whole heartedly believe or know of any spirit and or soul apart form the human organism. I would go so far as to say that there is a spectrum of love, sexual, platonic, marital, motherly, fatherly, required, unrequited, necessary, unnecessary, etc, and all of these loves are in themselves ends and they all for the most part with exceptions give rise to pleasurable sensations while allowing solidarity to arise within the individual. The loves aforementioned are ends in themselves as their sole purpose is not to lead to further qualities of experience although I have mentioned that they do and I think that for the most part the definition of sex, love, the expressions of such aspects of life and the definitions and philosophical values placed upon such aspects are a matter of value judgments, in this case the former qualities mentioned differ depending upon the individual In question and thus to be able to say that love is absolutely one thing or another would be wrong, I am not saying that this is what you have done, for it doesn't seem as if you have, all I ask is for you to question your own representations of the qualities mentioned and consider the relativity of love and by this I mean the differentiation between definition, values, experiences, etc, which can be and are for the most part dependant upon the individual and change accordingly. It doesn't seem as if you have any positive evidence to support your case of giving sex a monotonous tone by affirming that it is a means to procreation (this I do not wholly doubt, but it doesn't have to be limited to this)and apart from a whole host of several life affirming qualities which gives rise to important, intriguing and fascinating aspects of the personality. If you ever do read this, thank you and I hope you enjoy the content.