Drogo didn't rape Dany

[Scipio Africanus]

I certainly find the Dany storyline troubling, but then I'm getting used to the idea that ASOIAF is meant to trouble you and disturb you. It's not the kind of book to offer easy answers.

I don't find the Dany POVs pleasant to read at all. And I didn't find the Drogo - Dany relationship romantic. All we see is a scared little girl broken into womenhood and under constant pressure and threat to obey (and get mounted).

Of course, we should place everything under perspective. In Martin's world women don't have equal rights to men, the term "teenager" is non-excistant as girls who flower are immediately considered women grown and ripe for bedding. And the aristocracy constantly market their daughters off for land and alliances.

Still didn't make me like reading the Dany chapters with Drogo as a post-modern reader though.

[mor2]

But then applying Dothraki standards is also pretty pointless. How Dany was treated becomes irrelevant because she doesn't have the right to have an opinion in that context and Drogo was probably at fault for not sharing her with his bloodriders. If we take that line then we are close to thinking that she just had to be broken in to her new life, sexually and physically, like a young horse - and look once she had been broken in she enjoyed it!

That seems to me to be a troubling way of looking at what happened.

That seems to me exactly the way to look at it, if you throw an animal into a lion den, you cannot blame the lions for devouring it and like it or not, to Viserys Dany was nothing more than stock animal, thrown to brute savages. Rape? what rape? for him its normal, he thinks that he is the mountain that mounts ahhm well dany.

Dany was never afforded any choice about any of that and very likely she didnt said NO to drogo on their wedding night, because she knew it. I think that this troubling scenario is exactly why it makes a good read, because it both highlights it making you think about it and because you see how despite all Dany managed to prosper and persevere.

[PatrickStormborn]

Daenerys was raped by Drogo. I don't understand why this is even up for debate. She had no power to stop him, nor did she think she had any right to because of the influence of the patriarchal society. That is rape, right there. The fact that she wanted to kill herself should highlight this.

Also, because some people don't appear to understand: not saying no =/= saying yes.

[Miriamele]

Marital rape didn't legally exist until about the 19th century. Previously they believed that it was the wife's duty to have sex whenever the husband wanted it. Sad, but true.

I found this on Wikipedia:

Historically, many cultures have had a concept of spouses' conjugal rights[6] to sexual intercourse with each other. This can be seen in Common law, in force in North America and the British Commonwealth, where the very concept of marital rape was treated as an impossibility. This was illustrated most vividly by Sir Matthew Hale, in his 1736 legal treatise, Historia Placitorum Coronæ or History of the Pleas of the Crown, where he wrote that such a rape could not be recognized since the wife "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract."

Common law and the United Kingdom

Hale's statement in History of the Pleas of the Crown was not supported by any judicial authority but was believed to be a logical consequence of the laws of marriage and rape as understood at the time. Marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse, and marriage could not be revoked except by private Act of Parliament—it therefore seemed to follow that a spouse could not legally revoke consent to sexual intercourse, and if there was consent there was no rape.

[Lummel]

Apparently marital rape was only criminalised in Scotland in 1982 and in England & Wales in 1991. I don't think that simply because it was legal that it was right, or simply because you couldn't bring a prosecution that you wouldn't have been outraged though.

[mor2]

Daenerys was raped by Drogo. I don't understand why this is even up for debate. She had no power to stop him, nor did she think she had any right to because of the influence of the patriarchal society. That is rape, right there. The fact that she wanted to kill herself should highlight this.

Also, because some people don't appear to understand: not saying no =/= saying yes.

There is no debate about this being a rape by our modern standards, only on its context within the book. Since by our standards the majority of the population of the world of ice and fire was raped, abused and had their rights trampled to dust.

[PatrickStormborn]

There is no debate about this being a rape by our modern standards, only on its context within the book. Since by our standards the majority of the population of the world of ice and fire was raped, abused and had their rights trampled to dust.

But there is really no need to look at the context. Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it.

[Miriamele]

Apparently marital rape was only criminalised in Scotland in 1982 and in England & Wales in 1991. I don't think that simply because it was legal that it was right, or simply because you couldn't bring a prosecution that you wouldn't have been outraged though.

You are right, but nowadays most rapists know at some level what they are doing, and Drogo probably thought he was being a good husband. Also more women accepted it as part of life than nowadays, because they never knew anything else. I think what happened between them wasn't right but wasn't exactly rape either.

[Torben]

A lot of the discussion seems to be revolving around the question which set of values is to be applied in order to define "rape". Evidently, the word means something different to us than it would have meant to the fictional Dothraki (if they even had a concept of it at all, that is...), and it also meant something different in our world in various ages.

Evidently, I will come to different conclusions depending on which set of values I apply. If I apply our current set of values, then of course it is rape as it is described. That neither Dany nor Drogo see it that way is understandable, given that they would apply their own set of values, in which the concept of marital rape (for Dany) or rape at all (for Drogo) don't exist.

[butterbumps!]

I think that the connotation and denotation of rape is sort of getting obscured here. Technically and legally, yes, rape is

a. Originally and chiefly: the act or crime, committed by a man, of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, esp. by means of threats or violence. In later use more generally: the act of forced, non-consenting, or illegal sexual intercourse with another person; sexual violation or assault. (from OED).

This is a very legal denotation, and frames "rape" merely as a forceful sexual act against one's will. However, the connotation of "rape" is more nuanced than this, and if you ask rapists what they were thinking, they say something along the lines that it was less about sex and more about control, women being objects, etc. Ask a rape victim what he/ she feels it is a loss of self through the act. From both rapist and victim's perspective, it involves a violation of one person through the negation of another's agency.

What I hope to articulate is that I see "rape" and "violation" to be something unique from not explicitly consensual sex, or an imbalance of power between the parties in question. I realize that this is the legal and technical description of "rape," but to me at least, this is too broad a category for the heinous nature of the word.

This is my opinion, but the only explicitly consensual sex we know about definitively in the series is between Jon/ Ygritte, Sam/ Gilly, Cersei/ Jaime, Asha/ Qarl the Maid, (and even when this got going I initially thought it was rape), and Dany/ Daario (although I would like to point out the imbalance of power between Asha and Dany, and the subjects they sleep with, which, by legal definition would be rape of the men). Yet, there's a ton of explicit and implicit sex that occurs everywhere in ASOIAF, all of which technically conforms to that OED denotation. This is my personal opinion, and I'm not trying to change anyone's minds, but only to express that calling everything rape cheapens the impact of that word, which I reserve for occasions where the victim actually feels victimized, emotionally uncomfortable and/ or violated (Lysa, Pia, Lollys, Jeyne, the innkeeper's daughter Gregor rapes come to mind, but there's others) OR where the aggressor seeks control and domination of the victim by objectifying her and taking her. This is not to negate the idea that Dany suffers or their relationship is not troublesome, but to say that if we call this rape than nearly every sexual act that occurs here is "rape", and I think that word carries too many alarmist connotations to be comfortable with that.

[mor2]

But there is really no need to look at the context. Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it.

Sure there is, otherwise there wouldnt be any need for this thread ;) After all you dont really think that anyone here thinks that forcing a person to have sex with you isnt a rape... and by looking the context, we can contrast and compare it with our reality and better appreciate few things our modern society allows us.(at least in first world countries)

[another bastard]

Well I'm glad you cleared that up for us....

Applying our view of sexual relations and views of consent is pretty pointless here. Drogo expects to have sex with his wife each night and Dany knows what is expected of her. She doesn't get any pleasure from it at first - far from it - but she regards it as her duty to bear it, to "lie back and think of England" if you will and she never once says no or tries to deflect him.

If this offends our modern sensibilities then I think you need to put yourself in the context of the time and the place. There is nothing more powerful in human history than the development and acceptance of an idea and your idea of "objective rape" which is tantamount to saying "all men (or at least all Dothraki men) are rapists" has no context here.

I have no problem with the way Martin shows Dany adjusting to her new way of life and coming to love her husband. To say we would expect something different in our own world in our own age and our own society is besides the point.

I'm sorry about my intemperate tone. Rape can be a touchy subject, and I wrote from emotion rather than just reason.

I suppose, more dispassionately, that it's just a matter of definitions. By the Dothraki definition of rape, Dany certainly wasn't raped. She wasn't by the Westrosi definition either, since they don't appear to have any concept of marital rape. By the real world definition of rape, she definitely was raped. I was using the real world definition, which I thought was appropriate, since we use the real world meanings of words all the time when we talk about the text, or any text. But I don't mean to sound harsh toward people who are just using in-text definitions. My point was just that according to the real world definition of rape, she was definitely raped. I hope that no one disagrees with this. By in-text definitions, it's completely different, I agree.

Can we agree that she was raped according to the real world meaning of the word, but that she wasn't according to the in-text meanings?

For whatever it's worth, I also enjoyed her story in AGOT; her endurance, fortitude, adaptability, strengthening, and growth. Drogo raped her repeatedly, but she learned how to exercise her own power to alter the dynamics of the relationship, then she actually fell in love with him, or so it seemed to me. All of these things can be simultaneously true. That's part of what makes this is a complex and compelling story for me.

[butterbumps!]

I know that I've argued coming away from Dany and Drogo's sexual engagements with a different take on it than many others. Looking beyond the question of rape definitions for a moment, I want to revisit the dynamics of their relationship that I find extremely interesting, because I think these are aspects that have shaped my image of Dany as a character (who I find complex and compelling). I think it might also help elucidate why the story has left me with what seems to be an unpopular interpretation of the scenes under debate.

I think that we can all agree that Dany has shown immeasurable strength and power throughout her arc. I think that from the beginning, Dany has innately sensed power and weakness in those around her, and further, she has both admired and envied (to the extent that it is something she wants to cultivate within herself) strength and power. I think Dany's arc has a lot to do with her coming to terms with the fact that she actually does embrace strength and power- and a violent power at that. I mean no qualitative judgment on this, but on a purely analytical level, I see Dany as struggling accept the fact that she is powerful, violent and strong, despite the fact that she feels she ought to be gentle, kind and motherly.

So I think strength, power and violence are part of Dany-- from the beginning-- but she represses these things because I get the sense that she thinks she ought to be different. This is part of why I think that Dany and Drogo's relationship is a bit more complex, and why I never doubted the genuine nature of their love. Drogo is unabashedly violent, powerful and strong, which Dany recognizes and is extremely attracted to. I think that further, she admires these qualities so much, that she truly wants to earn Drogo's respect, because she herself wants to cultivate these traits.

Dany does not seem to fear Drogo, or suggest that there would be violent repercussions to explicitly not consenting to sex. It may be implied, but I think there's something a bit deeper at play. I honestly read Dany's muffled tears as being her instinctively knowing that Drogo values strength, and her wanting to both impress him and conform to a culture in which these things are valued. It's not fear or domination that she thinks about in her interior monologue, but impressing Drogo, and thus part of her journey toward understanding her own strength and power. It is his admiration she craves when consuming the horse heart, and when she rallies herself in healing from saddlesores. She's not merely trying to survive, but to channel how she feels about Drogo and what he represents, craving the power and control he possesses. Drogo may have relented if she asked him not to, but since she did not ask him to, we have no way of knowing. I did, however, get the impression that Dany did not want to ask him to stop because it was more undesirable to her for him to think she was weak than because she thought he would force her to anyway.

I think this makes their relationship troublesome, but interesting and complex because it seems that Drogo is the first person she recognizes as having these traits that she so greatly admires, and legitimately seeks his approval. Thus, I think hiding her tears and not withholding consent was more for her own sake than his. I think this also explains why she expresses nothing but positive feelings toward Drogo in the next 4 books-- because she has always instinctively known that she is "fire and blood," and I truly believe that looking back she would change nothing about it.

[corbon]

I'd argue that she expresses all of these things. Let's quote that scene again, shall we?

Here Dany does not explicitely state, "I feel dirty, violated, and used. I must be a rape victim." But to argue that the following passage does not display (as you put it) "feelings of self-loathing, being used, feeling dirty, violation during and after the act" strikes me as ridiculous.

Except that the two passages are separate. There is no self loathing, no feeling of being dirty and no feeling of violation expressed in the first passage, and the second passage need not express any of those things but could (and seems more fitting given all else) express instead despair.

But then, perhaps the reason you think actually following what the text says is because, as seen below (and already pointed out in post #26) you are adding stuff into your interpretation that simply isn't in the text.

In other words, the argument made here can't be entirely valid, because it isn't based on what is actually written, its based on what is written with additional things added in.

--Dany cries hysterically during the act

Not what it says. Hysteria is entirely invented here.

Tears wet her face and there are some cries of pain.

The tears may be due to 'humiliation', 'violation', 'self-loathing'. But they also may be from simple physical pain and discomfort. In fact, given that at no time does Dany express humiliation, self-loathing or violation, it is probably more likely that the tears are due to pain and discomfort.

-- Dany is in such physical pain during the act itself that she cannot suppress her cries of pain

Agreed, although the emotive language used here is unhelpful to a dispassionate analysis of the situation.

Firstly, we know she is in pain and discomfort all the time (at this time). So her pain is not necessarily just from sex, though probably the sex aggravates it.

Secondly, painful sex does not equate with rape.

--Dany, in the well known trajectory of rape victims, is ashamed and blames herself. She takes care to hide her screams, and is grateful that Drogo does not see her tears. In a way, she seems to view it as her fault, something utterly typical and par for the course in rape victims.

Again stuff added. There is nothing that says she is ashamed of the sex, nor blames herself for bad things happening. This is stuff the reader has added to the text. She hides her tears and muffles her cries (no screams, invented once again). This shows that she is willing for the sex to continue, whether for good reasons (its her contractual obligation and she recognises that good things (children) will eventually come of a difficult task) or bad (she is afraid of Drogo's response). Frankly, given the first night, I would suspect that she is less worried about his response - he has already shown gentleness and care when trying to connect with her on their first night and more worried about disappointing him and not fulfilling her contractual obligations.

She doesn't even think about 'fault', let alone assign it to herself. More invention.

--Dany is in such excruciating physical pain that she can't sleep at night, and is forced to stay up all night after Drogo takes her. Arguments do not really add up considering the following: This makes it clear that it is Drogo's sexually using Dany that is an undeniable cause of Dany's intense pain. Riding with the Dorthraki and having blisters and sores and raw skin all over her body may contribute greatly to the pain. But Danerys specifically notes that it is Khal Drogo (her "lord husband") coming in to her bed in the middle of the night and roughly fucking her that leads to the intense pain that makes her unable to sleep at night.

The pain is not described as 'excruciating'. She isn't 'forced to stay up'. These are outright lies.

She is simply in constant pain, which we know is a result of riding, not sex, and could be made worse by sex, but by no means has to be.

I've literally been there. I'm... aging. Playing sport, the mind still plays like a 20 year old, and can sometimes push the body along with it, but the body pays a heavy penalty afterwards. I have literally been in enough pain some evenings that I have lain all night beside my wife unable to sleep - usually getting up around 2-3am and playing computer games because that is more comfortable physically than lying down and gives the mind something to do. The point is that it does not take excruciating pain to prevent sleeping. A constant deep ache is plenty more than enough, and considering she has open saddles sores as well as muscle and joint pains from hard riding all day, she could be in the same situation with no sex at all. That level of pain intensity can be plenty more than enough.

The claim that it is clear, let alone undeniable, that Drogo using her sexually is what causes 'intense pain' is ridiculous IMO. She is already in a lot of pain outside the sex - that much is clear and undeniable! And yes, she has tears, and muffles cries of pain. And no doubt the cries are caused by painful sex. And no doubt that just makes her existing pain worse and her life more miserable generally. But that is very much different from the sex being her main problem (and non-consensual).

And then another invention. She does not outright state that "that it is Khal Drogo (her "lord husband") coming in to her bed in the middle of the night and roughly fucking her that leads to the intense pain that makes her unable to sleep at night." She states "When he was done, ... Dany would lie beside him, her body bruised and sore, hurting too much for sleep". She does not attribute cause, she tells timing.

--Danerys is so miserable that she considers suicide. (The difficulty of Dorthraki life definitely contributes to it. But what Drogo is doing to her (which causes her far more misery and pain than the riding, not to mention psychological damage, if the thing were dealt with honestly) is crucial and paramount.) Looking at the placement of Danerys consideration of suicide in the text, it is clear these thoughts/ wishes are closely connected to the treatment she's receiving at Drogo's hands.

But what Drogo is doing to her is not indicated as causing far more misery and pain than the riding. This is another invention. The only indication we have that what Drogo does to her causes any pain at all are her muffled cries.

It is not clear from the placement of the text that the suicide thoughts are closely connected. It is not only a separate paragraph, but day followed day and night followed night. The thoughts of suicide are clearly separated from the sex description by multiple days. So it is not an immediate follow up even though undoubtedly sex continued each of the following nights, probably the same. The point here is that the suicidal thoughts are clearly not directly connected to the sex description.

Then it says "she decided one night" - which tells us little to nothing. Was it before he arrived? Was it during the sex? Was it after the sex? There is no indication, which means that we can't directly reference it to just having had bad sex.

Huh. Interesting. To me her stating that she "cannot go on like this any longer" and thinking of suicide directly after Drogo has finished violating her indicates that her depression, feelings of hoplelessness, and losing the will to go on have everything to do with Drogo violating her. Her mentioning of her tears, cries of pain, and inability to sleep each and every night after he is through with her bespeaks of intense pain, both physical and psychological.

Except that these aren't true. Its not directly after Drogo 'violated her', or at least we dont know this. And tears, cries of pain and an inability to sleep are things she could be suffering with no sex at all, so can't be entirely attributed to the sex (though obviously the muffled cries are during sex and almost certainly sex exacerbates the riding pain).

As for "directly stating that she felt this way," I see that as some pretty unsubtle writing, generally uncharacteristic of GRRM. For Danerys to say, "Dany knew she could not endure a moment longer. She would kill herself rather than go on, she decided. This was clearly because Drogo has been violating my body and causing me intense physical and psychological suffering," Danerys reflected.*" (Italics mine.)

In my view, Danerys doesn't say this last part, because it is unnecessary to do so. Given the previous treatment just described, it seems that most would connect Danerys being violated by Drogo with her losing her will to live. Explicitely stating that this was why Dany wanted to die would be clunky writing miles away from GRRM's characteristic subtlety.

I agree. It would be clunky to write this and we shouldn't expect it.

But there are other, in fact better, reasons than 'being raped every night'. Especially when she never thinks of herself as being raped or violated or thinks of Drogo in any negative way.

And in my mind, Danerys does not have to view what Drogo did to her as a violation in order for it to be one. To me, the reader, it seems clear that Danerys is being violated.

That is because you keep inventing extra things that are in the text.

She might be being violated.

She also might be fulfilling an unpleasant but necessary task that she is deciding to do and gritting her teeth (metaphorically) to get through.

There is a lot more evidence for the later than the former.

Interesting, but I don't think categorizing the following as a violation:

"Even the nights brought no relief. Khal Drogo ignored her when they rode, even as he had ignored her during their wedding, and spent his evenings drinking with his warriors and bloodriders, racing his prize horses, watching women dance and men die. Dany had no place in these parts of his life. She was left to sup alone, or with Ser Jorah and her brother, and afterward to cry herself to sleep. Yet every night, some time before the dawn, Drogo would come to her tent and wake her in the dark, to ride her as relentlessly as he rode his stallion. He always took her from behind, Dothraki fashion, for which Dany was grateful; that way her lord husband could not see the tears that wet her face, and she could use her pillow to muffle her cries of pain. When he was done, he would close his eyes and begin to snore softly and Dany would lie beside him, her body bruised and sore, hurting too much for sleep."

Implies "tipping the balance a little too far". Or doing "a disservice" to real rape victims.

Categorizing it as a violation is not only mentally raping Dany - it is removing, denying even, any possibility of agency on her part before or after and dismissing her own thoughts and feelings as unworthy of acceptance, but it is also comdemning Drogo despite no actual evidence.

We simply don't see closely enough to judge whether there is any hint of non-consent on Dany's part. In fact everything we do see points to consent. She hides her discomfort from him and makes no complaint in his presence. Some argue that she does this from fear. She could equally be doing it from consenting to an unpleasant but necessary task. We can't judge this. The most important point though, is that she she does not indicate in any way to him unwillingness.

Any argument that consent must be actively given each and every time is modernist bullshit in the context of a marriage contract that implicitly provides power and wealth in exchange for heirs. For it to be rape, in this context, requires some indication somewhere of non-consent, and Drogo, as far as we see, does not get any.

Christ on a crutch. Consent for one time does not mean consent forever. Jesus.

The word "rape" has a real meaning in the real world, which is where we live and where the books were written.

Agreed and agreed.

But consent shown to a contractual obligation (provide heirs), does require non-consent shown to cancel the original consent. THe original is not 'forever', but it is active until shown (temporarily) to be inactive.

I suppose one can debate whether she had the power to freely consent the first night. But after that, she was raped, repeatedly, OK? She did not consent all of those times. That's what the word "rape" means. Non-consensual sex.

Show non-consent. You can't. You can only show levels of physical discomfort, and attempts to prevent the partner from seeing that - at least possibly implying consent!

And generalised consent given by accepting power and wealth.

Trying to figure out her own subjective understanding of what happened is also immaterial. Whatever it was, she was objectively raped.

Jesus.

Yes, Jesus (or Buddha, Confucious, Marx, or whatever if those offend you instead).

What difference is this attitude to white towns-people lynching a black man because he brought an dying little white girl to the doctor and he had blood on his hands?

Never mind that he was butchering a goat and saw her fall out of a tree, nor that she isn't bleeding, but suffered internal injuries. He's black (Dothraki), shes dying (in enough misery and pain to commit suicide) and by moving her at all he's making her internal injuries worse. And he has blood on his hands. Hang 'im high!!!!

Objectively, we don't know if she was raped or not, because we never saw non-consent. And we did see consent, both general in accepting the marriage contract, and specifically on the first night.

Bare in mind that this thread is not about whether Dany was abused or raped at all, but whether Drogo raped her.

Daenerys was raped by Drogo. I don't understand why this is even up for debate. She had no power to stop him, nor did she think she had any right to because of the influence of the patriarchal society. That is rape, right there. The fact that she wanted to kill herself should highlight this.

Also, because some people don't appear to understand: not saying no =/= saying yes.

It is up for debate because just having no power and no right to prevent it does not make it rape. What makes it rape is not consenting to it. And we don't actually see non-consent at any time, but we do actively see evidence of consent at several times (and we cannot be certain that she didn't choose to accept things she didn't really want in order to get other things she did really want).

I agree, not saying no does not equal saying yes.

But yes has been said. A contract has been agreed to and accepted. Thereafter, and actual no (or equivalent indications) is required for non-consent.

There is no debate about this being a rape by our modern standards, only on its context within the book. Since by our standards the majority of the population of the world of ice and fire was raped, abused and had their rights trampled to dust.

There absolutely is debate about it being rape, even by modern standards (age aside, which isn't really relevant, since that standard is only a modern one and not one held by the patrticipants in any way, or even evenly by all modern societies). Unfortunately few people in the debate are capable of actually sticking to the text, and not loading their language.

[eyeheartsansa]

On the show, I think Dany's feelings toward Drogo - in other words, all the stuff butterbumps just explained - are summed up beautifully in the look of adoration on her face while Drogo is giving his badass war speech.

[Orrin Storm]

I don't believe any of the times Dany and Drogo were together that she was raped, nor that she saw it that way. Dany was "Doing her duty" for a long time, just like Cersei and Stannis "Do their duty". It was her "job" to have Drogo's children, and if anyone is at fault is Viserys for selling his sister/(supposed to be wife) to Drogo.

That first night when Dany said yes and helped Drogo was her accepting her situation, but you don't need to like your situation to accept it. And thus she'd cry every night they had sex. Did it hurt? Yes, she even said it does, but I disagree if anyone was to say she was only crying in pain. Dany is a 13 year old girl at this point that only wants the house in Braavos with the Red Door. She has no control over her life, her marriage, or her sex life, but she "Does her duty". The longer she stays with the Dothraki the more she comes to understand their culture. They are a harsh people forged through a harsh life, and she relates to this and uses it to build herself up. Eventually she takes other parts of her life into her own hands. Her sex life, her marriage, her brother, her destiny. She builds a future for herself because she learned to accept her life and to use what she had to make it better.

Drogo was instrumental in this change because it was her sex life she took for herself first. It was her first victory, granted it's a strange victory to most it is the first time in Dany's life that she is in control. Drogo's submission and acceptance of Dany allows her to progress her growth outward to everything else in her life and ultimately they make each other better. I found their love story, and I've always seen it this way, as one of the best in a book I've ever read.

I've never seen Dany's early story as being about rape and forced loveless marriage. I've always seen how Dany learned that she was a dragon with the help of her sun and stars, Drogo.

[the trees have eyes]

Daenerys was raped by Drogo. I don't understand why this is even up for debate. She had no power to stop him, nor did she think she had any right to because of the influence of the patriarchal society. That is rape, right there. The fact that she wanted to kill herself should highlight this.

Also, because some people don't appear to understand: not saying no =/= saying yes.

There is no debate about this being a rape by our modern standards, only on its context within the book. Since by our standards the majority of the population of the world of ice and fire was raped, abused and had their rights trampled to dust.

This sure is a minefield but I don't agree with the above. Butterbumps post 153 puts it more articulately and sensitively than I can so I won't try and repeat it but what I'll say is

Neither Dany nor Drogo regard this as rape - I hope we (mostly) agree that in the context of the time and society.

But by modern standards this is not as simple as you make out. Dany does not explicitly consent true but she never withholds consent either. The key to your arguments that this is rape is that you believe Dany would have withheld consent if she had had that option and the maturity and confidence to make it clear that she wished to reject Drogo. I don't agree with this reading of her state of mind (see Buterbumps' post). I think she sees it as her duty to please her husband (however much that notion offends some people today) and therefore she does not withhold consent. This is key so I'll say it again: she does not reject the situation, she accepts it. The reason this gives people such trouble is they cannot imagine that anyone would accept the situation because they wouldn't themselves.

If you want an example of rape and marital rape (though they aren't married) take the example of Qarl the maid with Asha. She quite clearly says no, tells him to get out, pulls her dagger, fights him while he overpowers her and cuts her clothes off her. Now if this is what had happened with Drogo and Dany I think rape would fit the bill.

But there is really no need to look at the context. Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it.

This bit troubles me.

I see (in our modern 21st century world) a husband - not a particularly pleasant or sensitive one, but not violent either, let's call him "Drogo" - coming home from the pub late at night, waking up his wife and having sex before falling asleep. Let's call his wife "Dany". He wakes her up and she has no interest in having sex at all but in order to please him or just to get it over with quickly so she can go back to sleep she is passive and compliant until it is over.

The next morning they go about their daily routines as normal, thinking nothing of it but the police call round because a neighbour suspects that Drogo might have "done something". After interviewing both husband and wife Drogo is prosecuted for rape. Neither Drogo nor Dany think of it as rape and are bemused to find someone imposing their view of the marital couple's behaviour and state of mind onto events but they are told that the fact that neither of them "realise" it is rape is beside the point and Drogo is prosecuted as a criminal.

I am laying it on a bit thick but rape is a crime against the person and if both parties - who understand their intentions and own states of mind far better than any outsider - reject the idea of rape then I don't think that our supposition as to what they might have thought at the time or might have done if they had thought differently (i.e. as we do) can just sweep aside their context.

[Lummel]

...I am laying it on a bit thick but rape is a crime against the person and if both parties - who understand their intentions and own states of mind far better than any outsider - reject the idea of rape then I don't think that our supposition as to what they might have thought at the time or might have done if they had thought differently (i.e. as we do) can just sweep aside their context.

My understanding of this is that since it is a criminal offence not a civil one what the participants think is irrelevant. If the police judged that an offence had taken place they could move for a prosecution irrespective of what the participants thought, felt, intended or considered at the time or afterwards. Of course the Public Prosecutor might think it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute but that would be a different issue.

[the trees have eyes]

My understanding of this is that since it is a criminal offence not a civil one what the participants think is irrelevant. If the police judged that an offence had taken place they could move for a prosecution irrespective of what the participants thought, felt, intended or considered at the time or afterwards. Of course the Public Prosecutor might think it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute but that would be a different issue.

You're quite right of course and I guess I haven't articulated my point very well. If a husband torches his wife's car, beats her up or rapes her, there is a criminal offense and he is of course liable to prosecution whether she chooses to stand by him, remain silent or testify against him.

What I meant in my hypothetical scenario (as in the Drogo - Dany relationship) is that people are presuming to know what Dany thinks or wants and that based on this they are certain that rape has occurred. This is not established by the few lines of text that Martin pens on the subject. I find it plausible that to avoid appearing weak in Drogo's eyes (and we know how much the Dothraki despise weakness) Dany chooses to make the best of the situation, i.e. to hide her physical distress from riding which is of course exacerbated by sexual relations, and to accept it rather than to reject it.

We can debate endlessly whether societal and gender norms make it impossible for her to even consider this option - the argument that she is effectively coerced or under duress, or incapable of giving voice to her rejection of the situation - but without Dany's inner voice telling us this or her thinking back with anger and hurt at how Drogo treated her I'm not in agreement with the view that Drogo rapes her every night.

[Lummel]

I'm sure that part of the disagreements that we are all having on the topic is down to the difference between varieties of legal and moral approaches. My trouble is with the all's well that ends well idea that because Dany later seems ok and later thinks of Drogo with affection that what happened earlier is ok or excusable. I still find the whole scenario troubling, but then that works with the way I read the whole series.