• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank
  1. My sexual life is certainly not something I'd like to discuss on this forum. But I'm neither asexual nor a person who acts out of fear to commint something forbidden by religion. You see a sin as simply a religious prohibition (though as I've already said, religion is FAR more complex thing than just a set of rules). I see a sin as an act of behavior imcompatible with my personal moral principles, with my consciense, with my feel of shame. I know that my soul will feel bad if I commit it, so I don't want to commit it. I'm not excersising any force on myself. I'm sorry but it's really annoying to discuss with you such topics as love, sin, belief, morality and so on. So I'd better stop casting pearls before swine and return to our native planet ASOIAF forum, where people don't speak about sexual life in such a vulgar manner and don't have trouble understanding obvious things. Goodbye.
  2. I wrote exactly what I wrote. And if you think that I'll change my mind about what true love is just because of your messages on this forum - I urge you to sit down and think a little. However, it is scientifically proven that people (unlike animals) get much more pleasure when they have sex with a person they are deeply emotionally attached. I am among them at the moment) It's not true for people who valuate virginity. Agree. However, men and women tend to become sexually attracted to each other, because the two sexes were "invented" by evolution for reproduction. And here I cannot agree with you. Not everyone can love. Love requires from a person certain moral features. The better a man is, the stronger is his love and the more challenges it will endure. If you read the world-acknowedged definition of love given in the Bible, you'll get an idea of the highest standard of this feeling. And even if you take into accout normal human weakness, it'll still be obvious for you that "love" of totally selfish or corrupt person is just a mere exuse for real love. Very well. I cannot read it right now, so let's forget about Rome. But if a person spent all his life in the society without any moral limitations, he would hardly apprecciate such values as family, faithfullness, liability and self-sacrifice, because all these things requires from him an ability to limit his instincts and wishes - and he is simply not used to limit them. Why would he chase after a woman, who often counts on wedding/money/getting with child/good physical stature/ect, when it's easier to found sexual partner among male friends? No liability, no suspicion - just safe exchange of sexual pleasure. Why would he chase after a woman, whom he hardly knows at all, if it's much easier to persuade his younger sister to make pleasure for her beloved big bro? I don't say that it is always like this, no. But the idea is clear. Contraception, liberal laws, children's rights, social care, ect are surely good things. But they also free people from the necessity to take efforts. Nowadays you can say "I love you" and not bother youself thinking about what you will do, if you love gets pregnant. If her mum falls ill and needs constant attention/care? If your child is born ill? If she is unfairly imprisoned for 10 years? It's not about you, of course. Moreover, I actually admire you and your girlfriend. It's just my thoughts on what I see around me.
  3. No. Cercei's attitude towards Jaime has nothing to do with true love. When you truly love somebody, you at least will never sleep with anybody else (unless being forced to), especially behind his back. You'll also never mock at him and feel disgust, when he gets crippled. If Cercei ever truly loved Jaime, she would never encourage him to abandon all HIS rights so he could spend the rest of his life guarding the doors of her and Rhaegar's bedroom. She would abandon all HER rights, riches and ambitions to elope with him to Essos. But Cercei is a hopeless egoist and she is unable to love anybody. And you see things too plainly. It's really very hard, almost impossible to deprive youself of real life pleasures just out of fear of some "ridiculous" and "unexisting", never seen by anybody punishment (though it's indeed the core of religion as a personal belief, not just a code of rules). So no, it's not only about fear. It's about inner world of a person, his soul, his feel of shame, consciense (I mean "совесть" - irrational, subconscious feeling what is good and what is bad), ect. It's impossible to explain such things to a person, who have no idea about them or deny their existence. Unfortunately yes. Yes, I meant right that (I'm sorry for my imperfect English). Under "perverse sexual relationships" I mean all types of sexual relationships except thosr potentially resulting in healthy offspring. Sex isn't a visit to a toilette, and having a child isn't something like bying a car. Barrenness still turns tragedy to many women and their husbands (partners), who didn't want children in their twenties, but now - after years of taking pills and number of abortions - are already unable to change anything. I don't know, how old your gilfriend is and how she avoid pregnancy, but if she don't want children now, it doesn't mean that she won't want them later in her life. Absence of any taboos and limitations in sex sphere leads to moral degradation and dissolution, like it was in Roman Empire. If you find it OK, then I'm afraid we'd better end our discussion in this topic.
  4. I apologise but... what? Are you serious? Do you actually believe that being sexually drawn to your mirror image is healthy? Jaime and Cercei is the greatest example of what shit irl incest relations can be. Greedy, self-centered and cruel woman, droven only by her instincts and ambition, convinced his twin brother to betray their own father (by giving up all his heir's rights) and to make all his life null just to be ONE OF her fuckers - and you call it "healthy relations"? Effective contraception is not absolutely effective and have plenty of by-effects, which are harmful to reproductive system and can have negative effect on future children, if a woman once gets with intention to have them. Though, if a person is ready to kill his own children like some bothering flies, he is welcome to fuck with his brother or sister, no doubt. Here agree. But I am Russian, so here there is no problem.) It's only prohibited to wed brothers/sisters and direct ancestors/descendants here, but no one can be brought to account for having sex and children with any consenting adult. Very few people actually have sexual attratrion towards their close kin, it's true. But unless the society treated such relations so negatively, they would spread through it rapidly, because the recent years made it clear that the perversive nature of some kind of relationships is not an obtacle when you're chasing more and more sexual pleasure. Luckily, the Eastern Europe society condemns incest so severely that there is no need in any legal punishment to prevent it from spreading. Those, who happen to desire their brothers, sisters and parents can satisfy there desires quietly and privately and I assure you, nobody would care about it much.
  5. It seems that we have quite different ideas about a religious (or just moral) person. Yours is somewhat medieval, really I don't persecute or hate anybody, including gays; moreover, persecuting and judging other people is also considered as sin in Christianity. But everybody can have and voice his own opinion about CERTAIN DEEDS of people, about what is good and what is bad. No less and no more. Regarding the topic, I agree with the starter at some points. But I don't find somewhat particular icky in the cases of Asha/Theon and Sansa/Petyr. The first one was only a vulgar jape, and in the second one Sansa understoods that she and Baelish just play relatives. Concerning Targs... If they are magically protected from the genetic consequences and raised their children with the right (at least, meant for creation of a true family, not just for easy fucking like it was with Jaime and Cercei) idea of what their future relations with bro/sis should be like, I can accept it. It's an old tradition of a fictional family, whom the author granted with weighty reasons to continue it. But even in Martin's fantasy world, Targs are still seen as humans and therefore are still liable for the results. For Aerys and his twisted abusive relations with Rhaella, for Viserys, for Aegon/Naerys, for Helaena's twins, ect. If you sold 100 perfect computers and sell the 101st being sure that it will work correctly, but in fact it doesn't, you'll have to pay anyway.
  6. I'd like you not to call people's religious and moral principles "ignorant propaganda". Some things are detrimental to a personality regardless of an era, because human nature is always the same. The subject of this topic is among them. And as you probably have noticed, nobody calls your point of view "bestial dissolution", though there are many people thinking just so Let's have some respect to each other.
  7. Men and women don't fit for such measure of punishment equally. Thay differ physically, and even if Brienne would be able to survive on the wall, Margaery wouldn't. You cannot force all the girls in Westeros to learn how to fight and make them equal to men in sheer strenght. And one more moment. It is prohibited for the BB to fall in love and to have children. But if a man can easily alienate from his offspring, a women can't. What are you going to do with her children born from her "brothers"? The best way to reform the NW today is to make it a sort of a militarised commune. The abcence of women is not the problem of the NW now. The problem is that its whole structure is ineffective.
  8. +++++++++++++!
  9. Right is always accompanied by liability. The moment you allow the likes of Brienne Tarth to join the NW, you'll allow the ladyes like Catelyn Stark or Cercei Lannister to BE LEGALLY FORCED to do the same. Without any chances to survive, of course, because 1) noble ladies are more likely to prefer death rather than shame and contempt 2) they are physically weaker than men, including criminals and other scum, and are unable to protect themselves with the sword or another weapon 3) some aren't used to such climate and so hard living conditions. And I don't even speak about simple girls, who can only do some housework and were sentenced, for excample, for murdering their cruel husband. Do you prefer death or the life of constant rape and derision? I would certainly choose the first option.
  10. Jon Snow resembles Daeron II
  11. I think he imprisoned his sisters with the same goal he actually reached: to cut them off the court and above all - to ensure that they wouldn't have children. Because his agreement with the Prince of Dorne implied that Martell ex-heiress would be the wife of his own heir (or why was Mariah disinherited in favor of her brother right after the betrothal? To be a queen consort, of course), and because he probably wanted Daeron eventually to bring Dorne into the Realm.
  12. Yeah.( It was the biggest Targ family ever and I'd like to get a full image of it. There already was some tension between Baelor and Maekar before Ashford, it's obvoius, but without knowing their father's role it's difficult to understand their relations with each other properly. We have practically no info about their childhood and upbringing, and that's... a real pity. I think if Dunk had been represented to the King after meeting Baelor and Maekar, he would have been a bit... surprised.) Though it seems that Baelor actually resembled his father in character and even facial expression.
  13. That's Biology. That's one of two biological strategies of breeding: to produce 1-2 children, but strong, well-cared and protected OR to leave as many offsprings as possible and let them struggle for life in agressive environment. And though human strategy is naturally the first one, till 19th century - due to permanent wars, high rate of deliquency, ineffective medicine and insanitariness - wifes had to bear 6-8 children so to 1-2 of them could reach majority.
  14. No-no-no. Rhaegel was certainly mad and weak-minded. Aerys was described as a clever man, but... All this his extreme obsession with reading books (he even forgot to sleep and change his clothes!), absenteeism and disposition to avoid other people, very few close companions (did he have any friends except Brynden at all?) resembles autism, honestly. It may be not it, of course, but such behavior is not normal. His father, unkle and aunt, septon Barth, Rodrik Harlaw and Tyrion were/are also very learned and bookish people, but all lived active life, did their duties and had other interests. He did not.
  15. The Targaryens There are too many of them: Daeron himself, Baelor, Valarr, Aerys, Rhaegel, Maekar, Daeron, Aerion, probably Matarys... Somebody always survives Dorne And so he spoke, and so he spoke That proud Blackfyre king; But now the sands scrub out his bones With not a soul to hear. Oh, what a surprise... But it is the most likely result. If not, Daenerys will be very happy to see her children murdered by her own brother, and become his second wife after that. The Blackfyres First of all, honorble knights will be very honored to bow to the King Kin- and Kidslayer. His Grace is not an ugly freak of nature who kills his enemies with damned longbow - so, all okay! Secondly, Daemon's seven sons will be very proud of their heroic father, and will love each other in his memory. Especially Aemon will love his twin bro: "What?! I was actually born THE FIRST? No, no, how dare you, it's totally impossible..." The North - Guys, it seems that Aegon's bunch of steel was taken by people who don't ride dragons and are not my childhood friends... - KING IN THE NORTH!!! Westeros *being ripped apart with new civil war on two fronts* And finally the Only Rightful Queen comes out from the treasury and takes the Iron Throne back from the descendants of Viserys the Usurper *trollface*