332 replies to this topic

[The Swaggering Bravo]

Jcooper, on 04 May 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

A thirteen year old girl is as perfectly capable of consenting to sex as a thirty year old woman.

Are you fucking kidding me.

[Winter's Knight]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

Are you fucking kidding me.

This is madness.

So, I propose that we start judging characters by Saudi Arabian standards of morality, yes? It's a culture like any other after all.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

Are you fucking kidding me.

No.

[Jayce]

Lummel, on 04 May 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

But then which in-book standard should we apply?  The Dothraki, Pentoshi or Westerosi one?  And should we think about best practise, worst practise or somekind of average?

There isn't in ASOIAF a legal age or a moral standard, there are bunches of them, of course most of them are pretty harsh compared to 21st century UN approved guidelines or the views predominant amongst highly educated people.

Eh?

I was making the point to a previous poster who did apply a modern legal limit (and called her a child at 13 and unable to consent) that there are different modern day legal limits, some that allow 13, around the world.

As for applying an in-book standard to the legal limit, well what are they? I don;t believe we have seen any other then puberty = adult = allowed to have sex, have we?

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Winter, on 04 May 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

This is madness.

So, I propose that we start judging characters by Saudi Arabian standards of morality, yes? It's a culture like any other after all.

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me or not. But hell, I'll give you guys a figure anyway. If his claim is that Dany was raped because she's a minor, are you therefore saying that the 7,158 pregnant girls under the age of 16 (the age of consent) are rape victims, simply because of their age? If you are seriously telling me that you think NONE of them consented to sex, because they are under 16, I don't know what to say.

ETA: That was from England and Wales in 2009, I should say

Edited by Jcooper, 04 May 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[Fragile Bird]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

Are you fucking kidding me.

You are quoting Jcooper out of context, which is unfair and distorted.

[Evamitchelle]

Jayce, on 04 May 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Eh?

I was making the point to a previous poster who did apply a modern legal limit (and called her a child at 13 and unable to consent) that there are different modern day legal limits, some that allow 13, around the world.

As for applying an in-book standard to the legal limit, well what are they? I don;t believe we have seen any other then puberty = adult = allowed to have sex, have we?

Quote

The nature of the relationship between Sandor and Sansa has been a hot topic on Revanshe's board. Sansa's youth has been one focus of the discussion. What is the general Westerosi view as to romantic or sexual relationships involving a girl of Sansa's age and level of physical maturity?
A boy is Westeros is considered to be a "man grown" at sixteen years. The same is true for girls. Sixteen is the age of legal majority, as twenty-one is for us.
However, for girls, the first flowering is also very significant... and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.
A girl who has flowered, but not yet attained her sixteenth name day, is in a somewhat ambigious position: part child, part woman. A "maid," in other words. Fertile but innocent, beloved of the singers.
In the "general Westerosi view," well, girls may well be wed before their first flowerings, for political reasons, but it would considered perverse to bed them. And such early weddings, even without sex, remain rare. Generally weddings are postponed until the bride has passed from girlhood to maidenhood.
Maidens may be wedded and bedded... however, even there, many husbands will wait until the bride is fifteen or sixteen before sleeping with them. Very young mothers tend to have significantly higher rates of death in childbirth, which the maesters will have noted.
As in the real Middle Ages, highborn girls tend to flower significantly earlier than those of lower birth. Probably a matter of nutrition. As a result, they also tend to marry earlier, and to bear children earlier.
There are plenty of exceptions.

From an October 99 SSM.

So I think it's a bit more complicated than "puberty = adult = allowed to have sex".

Edited by Evamitchelle, 04 May 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[Dracarya]

The misogynistic, sexist, rapist scary dude is here! It didn't take long, I just can't help myself.

corbon, on 04 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

<snipped for space>

Pretty much everything you said.

[Dracarya]

Jcooper, on 04 May 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me or not. But hell, I'll give you guys a figure anyway. If his claim is that Dany was raped because she's a minor, are you therefore saying that the 7,158 pregnant girls under the age of 16 (the age of consent) are rape victims, simply because of their age? If you are seriously telling me that you think NONE of them consented to sex, because they are under 16, I don't know what to say.

ETA: That was from England and Wales in 2009, I should say

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law changed in England so that having sex with anyone under 16 is classed as rape, which is not only ridiculous, but also just a point about our modern culture, not Westeros. Just thought I'd make that point before someone else used it against you

Opening myself up to being called a slut, but I first had sex at 13. I knew what I was doing. It wasn't rape. So I agree that some girls are quite capable of consenting at 13 as a 30 year old woman is. Not all, but some. And kids seem to be having sex younger and younger nowadays, so your point is valid.

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Dracarya, on 04 May 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law changed in England so that having sex with anyone under 16 is classed as rape, which is not only ridiculous, but also just a point about our modern culture, not Westeros. Just thought I'd make that point before someone else used it against you

Opening myself up to being called a slut, but I first had sex at 13. I knew what I was doing. It wasn't rape. So I agree that some girls are quite capable of consenting at 13 as a 30 year old woman is. Not all, but some. And kids seem to be having sex younger and younger nowadays, so your point is valid.

Yeah, as I said in my earlier post, it's referred to as statutory rape. It doesn't mean the man forced himself on the girl, it means he had sex with her when she was under the age of consent, so there is a chance that she didn't know what she was agreeing to. In Westeros, there is no age of consent, so Dany willingly having sex with Drogo does not make him a rapist just because of that. My point is, Dany at thirteen is just as capable of wanting to have sex, as a thirty year old woman.

[Evamitchelle]

Dracarya, on 04 May 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law changed in England so that having sex with anyone under 16 is classed as rape, which is not only ridiculous, but also just a point about our modern culture, not Westeros. Just thought I'd make that point before someone else used it against you

I think it depends on the age of the other participant. At least in practice. It might still be illegal, but it usually won't be prosecuted if the two participants are both under 16 (as in the case of the 14-year-old girl and the 12-year-old boy who became parents 1-2 years ago in England).

[All Men Must Rhyme]

Evamitchelle, on 04 May 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

I think it depends on the age of the other participant. At least in practice. It might still be illegal, but it usually won't be prosecuted if the two participants are both under 16 (as in the case of the 14-year-old girl and the 12-year-old boy who became parents 1-2 years ago in England).

Yeah, I think so. If the guy is over 16, and the girl is under 16, he can be tried as a statutory rapist. Not actually sure how it works if the roles are reversed, but I assume it's the same.

[Lummel]

As far as I understand the position in UK law the age of both parties is taken into account before the decision is made as to whether to prosecute, probably because the consensus view (rightly or wrongly) is that a significantly older partner might be in a position to pressurise or unduly influence a significantly younger partner.

If we look at Dany situation in the round there is nothing but pressure and expectation laid upon her, her consent or otherwise is hardly relevant to the male parties who have respectively bought, sold and brokered the deal to exchange her.

By the time that Drogo asks her "no?" he isn't even asking her to consent to sex, which is already happening, he is only asking her to consent to penetration.  ( I really ought to apologise, my posts seem to be getting more and more graphic by the day, what will tomorrow bring I wonder?).

[Lummel]

Jcooper, on 04 May 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Yeah, I think so. If the guy is over 16, and the girl is under 16, he can be tried as a statutory rapist. Not actually sure how it works if the roles are reversed, but I assume it's the same.

Yes, it is the same, there was a case with a school teacher and one of her pupils a couple of years ago.

Edited by Lummel, 04 May 2012 - 06:51 AM.

[Dracarya]

Evamitchelle, on 04 May 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

I think it depends on the age of the other participant. At least in practice. It might still be illegal, but it usually won't be prosecuted if the two participants are both under 16 (as in the case of the 14-year-old girl and the 12-year-old boy who became parents 1-2 years ago in England).

Lummel, on 04 May 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

As far as I understand the position in UK law the age of both parties is taken into account before the decision is made as to whether to prosecute, probably because the consensus view (rightly or wrongly) is that a significantly older partner might be in a position to pressurise or unduly influence a significantly younger partner.

Jcooper, on 04 May 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Yeah, I think so. If the guy is over 16, and the girl is under 16, he can be tried as a statutory rapist. Not actually sure how it works if the roles are reversed, but I assume it's the same.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear - what Jcooper said. If the girl is under 16 and the bloke is over 16, then it's classed as rape.

ETA: It's classed as rape if the woman is over 16 too? Good. Glad to know women don't get a free pass with shit like that.

Edited by Dracarya, 04 May 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[cuendillar]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 04 May 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

cuendillar, things are illegal because they are morally and socially inexcusable. Raping a child is all of the above, and just because the Dothraki don't have a problem with it doesn't pardon it. Minors can't give consent, and it's pointless to try to view it in the Dothraki standard since they have no issue with it whatsoever.

That just isn't true. Here in Sweden, internet piracy is illegal - but it's often considered quirky to exclusively buy physical copies instead. Breaking that law is, among youths, more socially acceptable than not to. Laws like that come about due to political pressure rather than from mirroring public notions of right and wrong. But please don't discuss the example, let's keep it on topic. Consentual sex between minors legally means both are rapists and victims.

As I said above, the only standard valid for concern about legality is the Dothraki one. Noone can be sentenced from breaking laws only valid in other countries. It's pointless to use a modern-day Western standard. There was a cases in Nigeria where a girl was stoned to death for getting pregnant by rape. The pregnancy was considered proof for her having had extra-marietal sex as she was unmarried at the time. The punishment was fully in accordance to their sharia law.

Minors can give consent just like any other persons. Consent just means saying 'yes', they know that word. That was actually the very word Dany did use... The point of 'age of consent' is that those under said age aren't considered capable of forseeing the consequences of their actions and/or not be able to withstand manipulation. It's another modern concept that children can't be held accountable for their own actions.

I never claimed their action (except the wedding night) wasn't wrong. I just questioned that Khal Drogo carried the entire burden of guilt. I still hold to that opinion, though I can certainly see your point of view as well.

[eyeheartsansa]

The Swaggering Bravo, on 04 May 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

Not really, considering Cersei is at the legal age of someone who is able to give consent in the first place. Double Standard time: You said that Dany gave consent by hiding her fears and doing her duty as Drogo's wife, but you said here that Cersei was raped because she didn't enjoy it. Both cases are a form of rape, but it's amusing that you'll use one standard as an alibi and ignore it in another case.

You're putting words in my mouth.. The difference is not that Cercei didn't enjoy it, but that she actually recalls it as rape.. whereas Dany does not.  Amusing, I know!

agreeing to unenjoyable sex = not rape - just crappy sex.
having sex forced upon you without your consent = rape.

The fuzzy area is how much Dany intended to resist, consent, and her reasons for doing so.  AND how much Drogo would have continued to force himself on Dany had she made it clear that she was resisting.  We can speculate, because it is unclear in the story.  What IS clear is that Dany never looks back and thinks "I was raped."

Edited by eyeheartsansa, 04 May 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[corbon]

Jcooper, on 04 May 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

As for the other nights, it's much more up in the air. She doesn't strictly say no. As has been said, she was already physically exhausted from the constant riding, and bearing in mind that she has the body of a thirteen year old girl and is having sex with a very large full grown man, it isn't going to be comfortable. The main difference for me in these scenes is that Drogo isn't thinking of her enjoyment, like he did the first night. No foreplay, no asking for permission, just taking what he considers to be his rights through marriage. That's not to say that it isn't rape, but the fact that Dany doesn't refuse, suggests that she is willing to have sex with him, she just doesn't enjoy it; that possibility needs to be considered as well before anyone is labelled a rapist.

You can say again about how Dany is raped because she fears what will happen if she doesn't have sex with Drogo, but that is just opinion. Nowhere in the text does she express fears about that, it never crosses her mind. That is just certain readers expressing their views on the situation as Dany's thought process, and labeling Drogo a rapist by doing so is unfair to him as a character.

Exactly.
Most of what I see on this board on this subject stinks, stinks I say, of the same mentality as lynch mobs. Ignore the actual evidence, ignore the context, ignore everything but the strident accusations of guilt.
And it is the worst behaviour on this board IMO.

[LifeRuiner]

Parts of Drogo and Dany's relationship are uncomfortable for me to read, let alone to romanticize. No matter anyone's age or her future feelings for him, Drogo was forcing himself on her for a time. I don't care for the legal definition of his actions across all cultures, all I know that because of that stage in their relationship, I was glad to see him gone. Both Martin and Dany may well try to present it as true romance, but as a reader, I couldn't buy it.

Edited by LifeRuiner, 04 May 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Dracarya]

Kozma, on 04 May 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

It is about time...Nabokov is for adults only....

Seems to me he's for kids only.