422 replies to this topic

[Winter's Knight]

The world of ASOIAF contains many elements that are difficult to reconcile with a  modern view of right and wrong.

One of these elements is rape.

A husband has the right to have sex with his wife whether she wills it or not. The same applies for a master/slave.

Please note that it is not as though there was no sense of marital rape being wrong-Robert was ashamed when Cersei confronted him about it for instance and Drogo does put an effort at least the first time in making the experience bearable for Dany.


My question is: how  far do you hold the characters responsible for committing rape that is considered excuseable in ASOIAFland but would be a crime in the context of today's Western countries?

Do you believe that it is a morally grey area?

Please be civil, no name calling and no accusing posters of condoning crimes in real life. This topic is highly sensitive.

Edited by Winterbreath, 02 March 2012 - 02:45 AM.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Rape, that is sex without consent, is rape anywhere.

However in terms of responsibility there is a different responsibility among one who is raised in a world who deems certain actions as not problematic and one raised in today's world.

There is still responsibility.

In regards to arranged marriages there are also the social expectations of others as a factor and of society in general.

Most humans at the end of the day act in relation to what is socially acceptable, there is a social pressure to act as what society deems acceptable and when society sucks, a lot of humans will be displaying a lot of shitty behavior.  There is still responsibility for the individual to not oppress other people's rights and also bring positive social change. But we are also lucky that we are not living in westeros having the social pressure to display the shitty behavior. And we have also managed to educate people about morality and people's rights.

At the end of the day humanity ends up representing the type of society it lives in.

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 01 March 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Christina Ceriddwynn]

within the realm of fantasy and westeros...rape seems to be more of an act of violence vs "having sex with a less than happy partner".

some may argue there is no difference but there really is....

one is often with hitting, force, with the emphasis on hurting the person whereas the other is....an act of expectation.  The goal isn't to cause actual harm to the other person.

[Winter's Knight]

Christina Ceriddwynn, on 01 March 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

within the realm of fantasy and westeros...rape seems to be more of an act of violence vs "having sex with a less than happy partner".

some may argue there is no difference but there really is....

one is often with hitting, force, with the emphasis on hurting the person whereas the other is....an act of expectation.  The goal isn't to cause actual harm to the other person.

Most experts agree that rape is about entitlement-the rapist feels that sex with the victim is his/her right and thus does not take consent into consideration.

So, no there really isn't a difference.

[The King in the South]

Depends on the context obviously.

For Drogo-Dany: We do not see it from Drogo's view, so it is hard to tell how much malicious intent or whatever there was behind his actions. I do not like Drogo as a character whatsoever, but I have a hard time faulting him with rape here, considering his and Dany's whole "No?" "No?" "No?" "Yes" conversation and their actions prior to the actual act of sex. My heart is full of pity for Dany in this situation, considering she had no choice in regards to her marriage to him, however, I do not believe Drogo necessarily knew (or for a better word, understood) that, and so it's hard to judge him on that context. I think honestly, the rape regarding Dany/Drogo, might be more evident in their later sexual endeavors, and not on this first night.

As for Tyrion-the Slave. This event is slightly different. Like Dany, the Slave is this case is pretty helpless. She can say no, but it won't do anything, and it might actually cause her problems depending on her masters reaction. However, because we see this even through Tyrion's eyes, and not the Slave's, I feel there is more applicable judgement regarding this case. Tyrion references that the slave is dead in her eyes/etc, well saying things like "I could choke you and nobody care", and then he proceeds to have sex with her. It should also be noted that he clearly registers that the slave does not want to have sex with him (she was disgusted, etc), but likely had no choice, and yet he still went through with the action. Twice if I recall.

So Dany/Drogo? Ehhhh. Tyrion/the Slave? Probably rape

I'll update this with my opinion on the Cersei-Robert relationship if no one states my opinion, but knowing my favorite poster, she'll come through.

Edited by The King in the South, 01 March 2012 - 07:34 PM.

[Machinist]

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

The world of ASOIAF contains many elements that are difficult to reconcile with a  modern view of right and wring.

One of these elements is rape.

A husband has the right to have sex with his wife whether she wills it or not. The same applies for a master/slave.

Please note that it is not as though there was no sense of marital rape being wrong-Robert was ashamed when Cersei confronted him about it for instance and Drogo does put an fort at least the first time in making the experience bearable for Dany.


My question is: how  far do you hold the characters responsible for committing rape that is considered excuseable in ASOIAFland but would be a crime in the context of today's Western countries?

Do you believe that it is a morally grey area?

Please be civil, no name calling and no accusing posters of condoning crimes in real life. This topic is highly sensitive.

do you believe all the people killing each other in the books bad as they are committing murder?

i mean you might as well make a thread about it as murder is "highly sensitive" and against what we see as "

difficult to reconcile with a modern view of right and wrong"

i mean this is a medieval fantasy book lol, from what i seen a man can rape his wife with no problem and a raper would have his bits cut off by the loyal lord, id imagine some characters would have pity on women getting raped if it was a wife for example but theres nothing they could do and it was a unhappy marriage but that is the time its set in. i mean... wtf is this thread seriously...

modern day principles shouldnt even factor in at any stage to be honest lol

p.s imagine if tyrion raped/bedded sansa imagine the uproar lol

Edited by Machinist, 01 March 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[Fire_Kiss]

Thank's for making this thread, Winterbreath! (and may I say your name reminds me of a brand of gum I chew? haha)

So, this is what I think, based on some study of ethics in college last semester, and on my own opinions.

Something is ethical if it is right, or, to put it in simplest terms: if it's the most pro-survival for the individual. (like when a man steals to feed his family)

Something is moral if the group the individual is a part of deems it correct. (like, you shouldn't break into my car, just because you like the shoes inside. [true story])

In the world GRRM created, there is/was a such a thing as "lord rights". Back in the day, apparently, a Lord or King got to have sex with the maiden wife of his vassals, BEFORE the husband did! This has more or less fallen out of practice, though we know Aerys took certain liberties with Tywin's wife. The other part of this, is the husband (in GRRM's world) has the "right" to have sex with his wife.

I believe in this world, the consent is given at the time of the marriage. If I agree to marry Joe the Sellsword, he would get to have sex with me, thereby producing heirs to his name, his potential house, etc. It would be my duty in this case to have sex with him, per the morals of the group I'm living in.

So, like I said earlier about Dany, she absolutly consented to having sex with Drogo that first night. However, it's possible that she wasn't aware of the customs of the Dothraki. ("they take their women like a dog takes a bitch") But once she learned that, she took charge of her own situation, and showed him how SHE wanted to have sex.

[Anvilbreaker]

I kinda think that the marital rape is different than the stuff ironborn or the mountain's men do. neither are really okay but war-rape is more not okay

[Angalin]

<mod>
As the OP pointed out, this is a very sensitive topic.  If that isn't respected, the thread will be closed.  Consider yourselves put on notice.
</mod>

[Erinne]

Rape is rape is wrong, regardless of whether a society considers it acceptable in some circumstances. However, I would say that in these cases the blame lies partly with the social system as a whole for condoning it, rather than solely with the individual who commits rape. Same applies to torture, murder, etc. Point is, a lot of ordinary, decent people will go along with all sorts of horrible shit if it's considered acceptable in their society; this doesn't make them monsters, but it also doesn't mean that those actions are ok.

[Maroucia]

I always try to perceive every event in these books from the point of view of a Westerosi. I don’t think rape is acceptable in that society, but many things we would consider rape in our world are not seen this way in Westeros. So a wife HAS to sleep with her husband and a slave (in Essos) must do whatever her master wants. There is nothing acceptable about that, but I’m not going to start jugging every character of these books from a 2012 North American point of view.
What is the point of reading fantasy or historic novels if you are not willing to really immerse yourself in these other time and places? Nothing is going to chock me in the ASOIAF story and if it those, I’ll be happy because I love being chocked.

Edited by Maroucia, 01 March 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[ServantOnIce]

Rape:  according to Merriam Webster:  : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2
: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3
: an outrageous violation
First Known Use of RAPE

14th century

For thousands of years "rape" was and is used by conquering groups from armies to a single individual to humiliate, terrorize, and deprive folks of their dignity and humanity.  Martin includes this act in his books as many  other works of literature do to show the the violence, suffering and range of the human condition through out time.

The Dothraki like many "raider" style peoples don't see rape as wrong, they see it as "taking their conquest of victories"  even now in Africa and other parts of the world, conquering forces "rape" their victims and defeated foes.  Martin shows us how things are in his fantasy world, that from moments of joy and victory, to moments of pain and defeat the human condition is the greatest realm of fantasy of all.

JMO

[ServantOnIce]

Anvilbreaker, on 01 March 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

I kinda think that the marital rape is different than the stuff ironborn or the mountain's men do. neither are really okay but war-rape is more not okay

I think that is a touchy subject, because again in history there was always the right of Kings, Lords, Emperors, etc . .. (famously in the "Legend of Gilgamesh") again this was against peasants and the "small folk" also it was known that Caligula the Roman Emperor would do this to other nobles in Rome, and come back and tell them about their wives "finer and not so finer" carnal points.  

It is rape, but not in the "extreme violence" of the Dothraki, Iron  Born, Ser Gregor Clegane type, but in a wielding of power. Also, just because Martin an many other authors write about rape doesn't mean they endorse it. I know that is not what we folks are saying, but there are a few anti Martin folks in the fantasy realm that don't like his gritty style.

[Winter's Knight]

ServantOnIce, on 01 March 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

<snip>
The Dothraki like many "raider" style peoples don't see rape as wrong, they see it as "taking their conquest of victories"  even now in Africa and other parts of the world, conquering forces "rape" their victims and defeated foes.  Martin shows us how things are in his fantasy world, that from moments of joy and victory, to moments of pain and defeat the human condition is the greatest realm of fantasy of all.

JMO

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?
Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

[Fire_Kiss]

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?
Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

Yes. See my point about Morals? It's not immoral to have sex with your wife, even if she doesnt want to. (at least in this world)
In Slaver's bay, there is nothing wrong with slavery. Danny even witnesses some of the slave willingly selling themselves back into slavery. I don't see how that would be a crime in any way.

[Maroucia]

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?
Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?
Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

Everything that we perceive as human being is relative; there is NO logic in life! Nothing is good or wrong; it’s us as human being that try to make some logic of the world, so, yes, the good and the bad only exist in the mind of the person who does it.

[ServantOnIce]

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?
Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

In the United States  and many (not all) other nations legally it does not.  But in Martin's world, I don't know, we would have  to ask Maester Martin.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Winterbreath, on 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

This I'd like to address:

If a person doesn't perceive his/her actions as wrong, does it absolve them of their crimes?

No. The harm of your actions is still there whether you care about it or you perceive it as wrong.

Quote

Conversely, if their victims don't perceive that they have been violated, does it absolve the aggressor?

Possibly. However if the victim feels that it has been wronged but it forgives the aggressor the responsibility of the aggressor for doing something wrong and that they should not do it in the future, is still there.

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 01 March 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[ServantOnIce]

Maroucia, on 01 March 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Everything that we perceive as human being is relative; there is NO logic in life! Nothing is good or wrong; it’s us as human being that try to make some logic of the world, so, yes, the good and the bad only exist in the mind of the person who does it.

That I STRONGLY disagree, but debating it won't change any of our minds.

[Keep Shelly in Athens]

Agreed on blaming the social system, not individuals in this case. I hate to get all academic, but the roots of the idea of a "lord's right to his bride" is rooted in the way humans created ideas of kinship in the ancient past. I'm going to quote an anthropologist, Gail Rubin, on the subject of bride exchange, who has made the "rape" question very clear to me:

Quote

If it is women who are being transacted, then it is the men who give and take them who are linked, the women being a conduit of a relationship rather than a partner to it. The exchange of women does not necessarily imply that women are objectified, in the modern sense, since objects in the primitive world are imbued with highly personal qualities. But it does imply a distinction between gift and giver. If women are the gifts, then it is men who are the exchange partners. And it is the partners, not the presents, upon whom reciprocal exchange confers its quasi-mystical power of social linkage. The relations of such a system are such that women are in no position to realize the benefits of their own circulation...

In other words, women are in no position to give themselves away. She says we should denounce what these systems do to women, and be sure not to talk about one "of the greatest rip-offs of all time" as romantic. Calling it "rape" or "objectification" is painting with too broad a brush, however.

She goes on to explain how this concept relates to our modern day society,

Quote

The "exchange of women" is a seductive and powerful concept...Women are given in marriage, taken in battle, exchanged for favors, sent as tribute, traded, bought, and sold. Far from being confined to the "primitive" world, these practices seem only to become more pronounced and commercialized in more "civilized" societies. Men are of course also trafficked--but as slaves, hustlers, athletic stars, serfs, or as some other catastrophic social status, rather than as men.

In other words, men are exchanged as "other people," women are exchanged as women.

(Quotes from Gail Rubin, The Traffic in Women, 1975; note to the mods, if this is too much quoting, I will summarize)

Edited by Keep Shelly in Athens, 01 March 2012 - 09:01 PM.