What's the Series' Best Romantic Moment?

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

13 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

You seem to have ignored my final questions. No reason to even reapond to people who ignore the more important questions I asked.

The questions you're referring to weren't even there when I responded. Had I seen them, I'd have responded, as I will now. 

16 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

As far as your other rant goes, I will simply ask a question. So are you saying that it is the same, or in fact worse, to call somewhat out for saying something racist or sexist (I was even at least trying to do it as friendly as possible) as it is to say racist/sexist things? For example, let us say I see someone yell at someone and call them racist words for a black person. Are you saying I am just as bad as them if I call them a racist for doing so?

No. Of course not. Calling a racist a racist or a sexist a sexist isn't bad at all. But here's the thing: I wasn't being sexist. I was expressing my disapproval of promiscuous behaviour. I disapprove of promiscuous behaviour from women and men. Harlot is just the term for a promiscuous woman, and though it has a negative connotation, it was still rather apt, as I was speaking of a promiscuous woman. Had I been speaking of a man, I'd have still disapproved. My disapproval of Arianne's open sexuality has nothing to do with her being a woman.

13 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

As far as what romantic love is, you clearly have a very incorrect view of what true romantic love is. Please go talk to someone who has been married for 30 years or longer about love. They will let you know about what true love is, and obsession...is not part of it.

If you know what true romantic love is, please enlighten me. I'll be impressed if you can give me the answer to that question. Love is very, very difficult to define. Ask 100 people what love is, and you'll receive 100 different answers.

13 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

And I would never change my morals for her, because it is not true romantic love if you feel you have to.

Truly? I'd certainly be willing to put aside my morals for the person I love, if it's necessary. That's the thing about love, though. You won't feel as though you have to, you'll want to, because you're in love. Love changes people. It binds people together, until you're basically one person, caring about each other as if they're you. I'd put my morals aside for myself, and for the ones we love, we have even more incentive. Still, you never really know until you're in such a situation, and I hope it'll never happen to either of us.

13 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

You used the word Slut; I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, without fully understanding the words connotations, it's history or the effect bandying it about has on women.  And for that I'm likely going to judge that you are quite young and not particularly intellectual. Am I wrong? quite possibly.

You are incorrect, twice. I do understand the history, and I certainly know the effect it can have on people (there's more on why I used the words later. I accidentally went over it again, but in more detail, with better context, so I decided to remove what I had here. I'm not just leaving that sentence off there.). On your second points, I'm not really sure how young "quite young" is, but I've been out of my teenage years for a few years now, so... no? Not quite young. Or yes, quite young. I would, however, consider myself an intellectual. I strive for knowledge, I enjoy debating my ideas with others, I'm open to changing my mind, I prefer to think things through, and I'm certainly not stupid.

But I think you've somewhat misunderstood me. Your entire comment is about sexism. My issue is not with women being promiscuous, it's with promiscuity. Men included. Every time you've spoken about sexuality in your comment, you've associated it with women. I understand why you might think that was my issue, as this all started by my comment on a promiscuous woman, but truly, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I suppose I could've reworded my original post, to say something along the lines of "Arianne's plot to crown Myrcella, which likely would've led to Mycella's death, led her to successfully attempt to seduce Arys, and Arys died because of this. Poor guy." I don't know, it just doesn't have the same weight as what I wrote, and it doesn't display my disapproval of Arianne's behaviour. It's a shame that there's not a better descriptor, one that doesn't have such a negative history surrounding it, but it remains that there isn't one. I simply used the most appropriate word, to convey my disapproval for what Arianne did, to describe her actions, and to keep decent sentence structure. I do see, however, how this may make it look like my disapproval of promiscuity is reserved only for women. It's not.

14 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

we too are a long way off equality.

I rather disagree, but this really isn't the place for such a discussion.There are certainly places in the world where there isn't equality, but in the eyes of the law, in most western countries at least, there is equality. There are anti-discrimination laws to ensure equality, too. The fact that sexists exist doesn't mean that there's inequality, it just means that there's sexists. To completely remove sexism from individuals, you'd have to control people's thoughts.

14 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

And by your own standards, they have every right to do so.  Just as you can within your rights to judge me as a pearl clutching liberal yogurt weaving feminist. And that's ok. So long as you are happy to own the fact that I'll be judging you right back.  

You're welcome to judge, I have no issue with that. I just prefer to be judged correctly. You've judged me a sexist, and I don't think that's appropriate. You can judge me positively or negatively, that's your prerogative, but judge me on my actual beliefs, not the one's that you've falsely noted. I'm sure I have flaws enough that you don't need to make any up.  

14 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Would you use any other harmful slurs when typing on this or any other forum, and not expect a backlash? I mean out of context such as in this case.  Would you casually call Jon Connington a fag?

Of course not. I would, however, call Jon Connington a homosexual. I would call him gay. There are no other, more "correct" ways to refer to promiscuity. Calling someone a fag is bad, but calling them a homosexual isn't. Calling someone a slut or a harlot is bad, but how to refer to it in a less harsh, insulting manner? A promiscuous woman? A promiscuous person? Should I restructure the sentence to not refer to them as "a something", but rather be referring to their promiscuity? These were all thoughts I had while making that first comment, but I decided to just go with harlot as it seemed to just be the most appropriate. The negative connotation was intended, as it was supposed to express disapproval, so I figured my point was getting across, though it may have accidentally branded me a sexist. Regardless, I can't think of any other way to refer to the situation without either saying or pussyfooting around the words slut or harlot. They're the only words to be used; so I decided to use them.

Besides, you can't choose to be gay, but you can absolutely choose to be promiscuous, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or fat, etc (no, I don't consider them to be equal). I make my judgments based on how a person chooses to be, not how they are.

[Wall Flower]

29 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The questions you're referring to weren't even there when I responded. Had I seen them, I'd have responded, as I will now. 

No. Of course not. Calling a racist a racist or a sexist a sexist isn't bad at all. But here's the thing: I wasn't being sexist. I was expressing my disapproval of promiscuous behaviour. I disapprove of promiscuous behaviour from women and men. Harlot is just the term for a promiscuous woman, and though it has a negative connotation, it was still rather apt, as I was speaking of a promiscuous woman. Had I been speaking of a man, I'd have still disapproved. My disapproval of Arianne's open sexuality has nothing to do with her being a woman.

If you know what true romantic love is, please enlighten me. I'll be impressed if you can give me the answer to that question. Love is very, very difficult to define. Ask 100 people what love is, and you'll receive 100 different answers.

Truly? I'd certainly be willing to put aside my morals for the person I love, if it's necessary. That's the thing about love, though. You won't feel as though you have to, you'll want to, because you're in love. Love changes people. It binds people together, until you're basically one person, caring about each other as if they're you. I'd put my morals aside for myself, and for the ones we love, we have even more incentive. Still, you never really know until you're in such a situation, and I hope it'll never happen to either of us.

You are incorrect, twice. I do understand the history, and I certainly know the effect it can have on people (there's more on why I used the words later. I accidentally went over it again, but in more detail, with better context, so I decided to remove what I had here. I'm not just leaving that sentence off there.). On your second points, I'm not really sure how young "quite young" is, but I've been out of my teenage years for a few years now, so... no? Not quite young. Or yes, quite young. I would, however, consider myself an intellectual. I strive for knowledge, I enjoy debating my ideas with others, I'm open to changing my mind, I prefer to think things through, and I'm certainly not stupid.

But I think you've somewhat misunderstood me. Your entire comment is about sexism. My issue is not with women being promiscuous, it's with promiscuity. Men included. Every time you've spoken about sexuality in your comment, you've associated it with women. I understand why you might think that was my issue, as this all started by my comment on a promiscuous woman, but truly, it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I suppose I could've reworded my original post, to say something along the lines of "Arianne's plot to crown Myrcella, which likely would've led to Mycella's death, led her to successfully attempt to seduce Arys, and Arys died because of this. Poor guy." I don't know, it just doesn't have the same weight as what I wrote, and it doesn't display my disapproval of Arianne's behaviour. It's a shame that there's not a better descriptor, one that doesn't have such a negative history surrounding it, but it remains that there isn't one. I simply used the most appropriate word, to convey my disapproval for what Arianne did, to describe her actions, and to keep decent sentence structure. I do see, however, how this may make it look like my disapproval of promiscuity is reserved only for women. It's not.

I rather disagree, but this really isn't the place for such a discussion.There are certainly places in the world where there isn't equality, but in the eyes of the law, in most western countries at least, there is equality. There are anti-discrimination laws to ensure equality, too. The fact that sexists exist doesn't mean that there's inequality, it just means that there's sexists. To completely remove sexism from individuals, you'd have to control people's thoughts.

You're welcome to judge, I have no issue with that. I just prefer to be judged correctly. You've judged me a sexist, and I don't think that's appropriate. You can judge me positively or negatively, that's your prerogative, but judge me on my actual beliefs, not the one's that you've falsely noted. I'm sure I have flaws enough that you don't need to make any up.  

Of course not. I would, however, call Jon Connington a homosexual. I would call him gay. There are no other, more "correct" ways to refer to promiscuity. Calling someone a fag is bad, but calling them a homosexual isn't. Calling someone a slut or a harlot is bad, but how to refer to it in a less harsh, insulting manner? A promiscuous woman? A promiscuous person? Should I restructure the sentence to not refer to them as "a something", but rather be referring to their promiscuity? These were all thoughts I had while making that first comment, but I decided to just go with harlot as it seemed to just be the most appropriate. The negative connotation was intended, as it was supposed to express disapproval, so I figured my point was getting across, though it may have accidentally branded me a sexist. Regardless, I can't think of any other way to refer to the situation without either saying or pussyfooting around the words slut or harlot. They're the only words to be used; so I decided to use them.

Besides, you can't choose to be gay, but you can absolutely choose to be promiscuous, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or fat, etc (no, I don't consider them to be equal). I make my judgments based on how a person chooses to be, not how they are.

 You are certainly free to disapprove of the behaviour of fictional characters but you've chosen to do that by using gendered sexual slurs that only apply to women. As The Weirwoods Eyes has explained, the fact that there is really no male equivalent to slut or harlot reflects a long standing double standard that judges women's sexuality much more harshly than men's.    If you consider Arianne promiscuous or manipulative, that is fair enough but why not use those gender neutral terms? Jaime has committed adultery, incest and treason but the term you've used for him is 'romantic'.

A number of people, including women such as myself, have pointed out how offensive they find such gendered sexual slurs and I'm disappointed that you are not prepared to consider not further offending people. By the way, when did being overweight become a moral failing (speaking as someone settling into the middle aged spread)?

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

16 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

A little pearl from aDwD regarding demeaning vocabulary

- The Wayward Bride

- The King's Prize

- The Sacrifice

So Morgan Liddle insulted Asha during battle.  In the end they were meaning to kill each other, but had honor enough to apologize for for the insult, but not for trying to kill her, which was of course fair game. Suggs has no justification.

Yeah, I think that is an interesting thing to note as well, derogatory language is a very interesting topic, Admittedly not the topic of this thread, so I won't go too deep. Don't want to get a ticking off.  But when you pick apart most derogatory language taking away for a minute racist language, which is a whole separate subject and deserves it's own analysis.  It boils down to this, it is either deriding a male for behaving in a perceived feminine manor, or deriding a female for not being controllable.  It pretty much all serves to keep gender roles stringent. I think there are very few traditional curses which don't do this. Bastard(and to be honest I think there is an argument that this one, does indeed have it's roots in gender control too) , Arse, Shit and Fuck being the only ones I can think of.

 As a total aside I fucking love the word Cunt. And I think the quote you posted here sums up my thoughts on it. I remember telling my kids nursery teacher once, how I found it very odd that the supposed "worst" word that you can say to a person is a word for women's genitalia. The source of life, a source of great pleasure and something highly valued by most men and women alike. Her face. Anyway I love the word and I love my cunt. But I totally respect other peoples feelings on that one too. I think when directed at a woman it is (especially apparently in American culture) extremely bad the intent is clearly vile, I always tell my kids it isn't the words which are bad, so much as it is the intention behind them. And I don't tend to use it very often as an insult. I'd have to be particularly angry.  But in my own culture (Northern British) It is used far, far more often as an insult to a man, and it means a particularly nasty man. A sly or dishonest man, someone who'd sell his granny-metaphorically speaking. 

12 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

clap clap clap! Excellent post. That's why ASOIAF is much more than a fantasy book, with a complex plot

Thank you very much.  It really is, and that is what I love so much about these books. They are astonishingly multi layered and thought provoking. You can read them and just skim it, enjoying the twists, turns, and battles. Or you can dive in and get some amazing insight into the human condition. 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

3 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

 You are certainly free to disapprove of the behaviour of fictional characters but you've chosen to do that by using gendered sexual slurs that only apply to women. As The Weirwoods Eyes has explained, the fact that there is really no male equivalent to slut or harlot reflects a long standing double standard that judges women's sexuality much more harshly than men's. 

It's a real shame that there aren't such words to describe men, but that's a failing of the language that I'm unable to correct. 

3 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

If you consider Arianne promiscuous or manipulative, that is fair enough but why not use those gender neutral terms?

For several reasons, that I've already mentioned previously. These include, primarily, the fact that I would've had to restructure the sentence to accommodate the change, and that the very negative history surrounding the word helped to showcase my disapproval. To showcase my disapproval otherwise, I'd have had to end the sentence with "and I disapprove of such actions", or something similar, and I didn't really need to, as the way I worded myself my disapproval was more than implied. It was more natural the way I phrased it. I used the word the same way people swear for emphasis.

You could ask why don't we always use gender neutral terms. They instead of she, theirs instead of his, etc. Just because something references gender, doesn't automatically mean it's bad, or that it's being used to segregate based on sex (waiter and waitress, for instance). Yes, it's a harsh descriptor I used, but I had the intention of being harsh. If there were an equally harsh, gender neutral term I could've used, perhaps I would have done so. But none such exist.

3 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Jaime has committed adultery, incest and treason but the term you've used for him is 'romantic'.

That's some charming simplicity. I called one of Jaime's actions romantic. I never absolved him for any of his actions, nor the one that I consider to be romantic. It was still horrible, but that doesn't make it not romantic. I'm also not sure why you're speaking about Jaime, anyway. Jamie has showed no promiscuous behaviour. I don't see how you got from "gender neutral terms" to me considering one of Jaime's actions to be romantic.

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

A number of people, including women such as myself, have pointed out how offensive they find such gendered sexual slurs and I'm disappointed that you are not prepared to consider not further offending people.

I apologise if I have caused offense. It was never my intention to do so, only to show my disapproval. I'm not sure why you think I'm unwilling to avoid offending people.

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

By the way, when did being overweight become a moral failing (speaking as someone settling into the middle aged spread)?

It's not. That was a brief list of things I disapprove of. If you're wondering why I disapprove, it's because it's unhealthy. It's not the easiest thing in the world to control our weight, I know, but just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. The amount of health risks associated with being overweight doesn't seem worth it. Seeing someone choose to be fat is the same as seeing someone choose to be unhealthy. So, I disapprove. It doesn't make you a horrible person if you're fat, nor if you're promiscuous, but just because I don't find it morally wrong doesn't mean I approve.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

4 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Snip. 

Hi there @cyberdirectorfreedom I've pulled out the bits from your post which I feel will be relevant. 

 

Quote

I'm not really sure how young "quite young" is, but I've been out of my teenage years for a few years now, so... no? Not quite young. Or yes, quite young. I would, however, consider myself an intellectual. I strive for knowledge, I enjoy debating my ideas with others, I'm open to changing my mind, I prefer to think things through, and I'm certainly not stupid.

First off I thought I'd address this. yes to me if you are only a few years out of your teenage years, you are still "quite young" but then, to another person - me in my mid thirties, am probably considered "quite young". So it is indeed subjective. But for the purposes of this discussion, it is my opinion which matters. As you are the subject and I am the commentator. So yeah you are quite young in my opinion. 

I can see how you consider yourself an intellectual, You have some very good points, for instance I totally agree with your comments regarding the definition of love. I'm frequently to be found on this forum discussing the complexity of love, and the fact that no one gets to define it for another person, as love is what love is to them. I find this comes up often when discussing SanSan for instance. As no matter the level of discomfort some readers have with the idea of this relationship, they don't get to say, well it can't be "love" .Ditto for Jaime and Cersei sometimes love is toxic, and sometimes it is inappropriate but it can't be pinned down to a PC version of morally sanctioned love. To do so is condescending and ignorant.

But I think you have a way to go on the intellect ladder, I think your responses in this thread show that. Now allow me to demonstrate. (and please take this in the gentle, well meaning, and educational manor it is intended. I in no way am attempting to express scorn or ridicule here.) 

Quote

But I think you've somewhat misunderstood me. Your entire comment is about sexism. My issue is not with women being promiscuous, it's with promiscuity. Men included. Every time you've spoken about sexuality in your comment, you've associated it with women. I understand why you might think that was my issue, as this all started by my comment on a promiscuous woman, but truly, it has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Yes, my entire comment is about sexism, as this was the issue I wished to address with you. As I previously said, I did not think you fully understood the connotations of the words you chose. I would advise, if not wishing to come across as sexist, that one refrain from using sexist; gendered slurs.  Such as Harlot & the infinitely more repulsive Slut.  You say that your issue is with promiscuity in general, and in your mind it may well be. I can't tell, as the language you chose to use is specifically aimed at women. The sex whom historically have had their sexuality cowed and controlled, not in small part via the language which you chose to use.  Therefore I chose to point out how problematic this language is, when discussing women and sex. 

Quote

I suppose I could've reworded my original post, to say something along the lines of "Arianne's plot to crown Myrcella, which likely would've led to Mycella's death, led her to successfully attempt to seduce Arys, and Arys died because of this. Poor guy." I don't know, it just doesn't have the same weight as what I wrote, and it doesn't display my disapproval of Arianne's behaviour. It's a shame that there's not a better descriptor, one that doesn't have such a negative history surrounding it, but it remains that there isn't one. I simply used the most appropriate word, to convey my disapproval for what Arianne did, to describe her actions, and to keep decent sentence structure. I do see, however, how this may make it look like my disapproval of promiscuity is reserved only for women. It's not.

Here I think we can get to the crux of the issue. You recognise yourself that the words which you chose are problematic, but felt that avoiding those words simply did not have the same gravitas.  Here's the big neon flashing light take home message *** There is a reason for that*** The reason that those words hold weight as descriptors is their history, and all the ugly sexist, controlling BS that they hold. They have the weight that you were seeking precisely because they have been used to destroy women throughout history. There is no other reason they hold so much power! 

So when you decided that your wording required gendered slurs, you were deciding that you wanted to convey the entire history of the theft of women's sexuality.  It was subconscious, I am almost certain, as you have asserted time and again that you did not wish to come across as sexist.  There is an unconscious code surrounding language one which we understand from a young age, some words convey certain things. They hold weight, you've understood that here, but haven't stopped to think if the weight of those words is really what your intent is. 

There is a reason that these words have no male equivalent.  I think you are intelligent, so I shall just leave it at that and allow you to ponder on the why of that. 

Quote

I rather disagree, but this really isn't the place for such a discussion.There are certainly places in the world where there isn't equality, but in the eyes of the law, in most western countries at least, there is equality. There are anti-discrimination laws to ensure equality, too.

I too disagree, but you are right. This is not the place for that discussion. Though I rather hope that given time and maturity you may come to realise that laws do not equal a reality of equality. And that we indeed do have a long way to go. Everything is tinged with the millennia of sexism this world has developed through.  And not to mention that "the west" ain't the whole world by a long chalk. I feel ASOIAF in particular points this out to it's readers. When you really start thinking about it. 

Quote

Of course not. I would, however, call Jon Connington a homosexual. I would call him gay. There are no other, more "correct" ways to refer to promiscuity. Calling someone a fag is bad, but calling them a homosexual isn't. Calling someone a slut or a harlot is bad, but how to refer to it in a less harsh, insulting manner? A promiscuous woman? A promiscuous person? Should I restructure the sentence to not refer to them as "a something", but rather be referring to their promiscuity? These were all thoughts I had while making that first comment, but I decided to just go with harlot as it seemed to just be the most appropriate. The negative connotation was intended, as it was supposed to express disapproval, so I figured my point was getting across, though it may have accidentally branded me a sexist. Regardless, I can't think of any other way to refer to the situation without either saying or pussyfooting around the words slut or harlot. They're the only words to be used; so I decided to use them.

I'm going to make a small suggestion here, If you wouldn't use the corresponding word in regards to race or homosexuality. Don't use it in regards to women.  There are indeed other more correct (if one wishes not to come across as a sexist) ways to refer to promiscuity. The very word promiscuous being the obvious one.  Yes you absolutely should re-structure the sentence to not refer to them as " a something".  Again, ask yourself would I refer to a gay man as "a something" if the answer is no, that's your red light clue to realise that referring to a woman as "a something" is a bad idea. 

You say that after considering all of this you decided to go with Harlot, as it seemed to be the most appropriate. And that you did this knowing the history behind the word.  I'm going to propose that though you knew the history, that you did not understand it. 

And that as you still feel that these words are appropriate to be used, when not wishing to convey the deeply rooted and damaging sexual double standard which they evoke, that you still do not fully understand it. 

Quote

Besides, you can't choose to be gay, but you can absolutely choose to be promiscuous, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or fat, etc (no, I don't consider them to be equal). I make my judgments based on how a person chooses to be, not how they are.

Hmmm, there is an argument regarding choice to be made for quite a few of those, and it often comes back to childhoods and maturity to grasp the error of your thought processes, or damage done.  Often how one "chooses" to be has been moulded frombirth and takes a HUGE amount of effort, understanding, and therapy to alter.  I'm not saying that they are as unalterable as being gay. I'm just saying that though some of those things you listed are pretty easy choices in life to fix, others are really not. All come from deeply ingrained thought processes, things which we had no control over, & cultural normalcy.  

 

Lastly I'd ask is Arrianne Promiscuous anyway?  define it. How many people must one have had sex with the be counted as promiscuous? Are there extenuating circumstances which might allow for that number to be exceeded and not cause one to be considered promiscuous? 

And ultimately, why is being promiscuous considered to be a bad thing? 

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

1 hour ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I can see how you consider yourself an intellectual, You have some very good points, for instance I totally agree with your comments regarding the definition of love. I'm frequently to be found on this forum discussing the complexity of love, and the fact that no one gets to define it for another person, as love is what love is to them. I find this comes up often when discussing SanSan for instance. As no matter the level of discomfort some readers have with the idea of this relationship, they don't get to say, well it can't be "love" .Ditto for Jaime and Cersei sometimes love is toxic, and sometimes it is inappropriate but it can't be pinned down to a PC version of morally sanctioned love. To do so is condescending and ignorant.

Yes, I heartily agree. Love's complexity is a large part of what makes humanity great. I'm always pleased to read about others' ideas of love, what it means to them, etc. To see people dismiss some loves as they don't conform to their ideas of love always surprises and saddens me.

1 hour ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

You say that your issue is with promiscuity in general, and in your mind it may well be. I can't tell, as the language you chose to use is specifically aimed at women. The sex whom historically have had their sexuality cowed and controlled, not in small part via the language which you chose to use.  Therefore I chose to point out how problematic this language is, when discussing women and sex. 

That's fair enough. The issue is that I suppose I didn't really think that the term itself is inherently sexist; I thought it was a (rather harsh) descriptor of a promiscuous woman, that was usually used in a sexist way (and certainly was the main use of it in it's time). I suppose that I'm wrong (or at least that you believe I'm wrong), and that it really can't be used without being seen as sexist (or without being sexist). Hm. Bears thought, at least.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

There is a reason that these words have no male equivalent.  I think you are intelligent, so I shall just leave it at that and allow you to ponder on the why of that.

Doesn't take much pondering. It's obviously because it was only seen as wrong for women to be promiscuous; for men, it really wasn't looked down upon. The words are a product of their time, when men really did dominate the world, and women were seen as something to be controlled. The prevailing beliefs of that time are not my beliefs, however.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 And not to mention that "the west" ain't the whole world by a long chalk. I feel ASOIAF in particular points this out to it's readers. When you really start thinking about it. 

I completely agree that the west isn't the entire world. But, as I believe that equality already exists in the western world (as close as it can get without literally controlling thoughts) I think it rather strange to be pushing for equality in the western world. There are places that would benefit from people pushing for equality, yet so many ignore those places, and push for equality in a place that already has it.

Though it's funny you mention that it's pointed out in the novels. I agree. I've seen a lot of comments on these forums about how the Essosi storylines don't really matter, with people saying how everything that happens over there is only of interest to them insofar as it effects Westeros. It's rather an amusing (in a somewhat shocking way) example of isolationism (is that the word I'm looking for? Sort of a cultural self-centeredness).

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I'm going to make a small suggestion here, If you wouldn't use the corresponding word in regards to race or homosexuality. Don't use it in regards to women.

That's somewhat fair, though not really accurate. It wasn't in regards to women, it was in regards to promiscuity. Are there racial or homosexual slurs that signify gender? The thing is, I wouldn't use slurs of any kind for race or sexual orientation, as I don't disapprove of anyone's sexual orientation or race. I do disapprove of promiscuity.

So I guess here's my issue. I felt that I should've used a slur (to express my disapproval) but promiscuous isn't a slur. It's just a descriptor. So, the only slurs for promiscuity are inherently sexist slurs? And they're inherently sexist because they're the only gendered slurs for promiscuity? None referring to men? I think I find this a bit confusing. Hypothetically, if there were male gendered slurs for promiscuity, and I was willing to use those and the female gendered slurs, would that make me a sexist against both men and women, or would they no longer be considered sexist as there are slurs for both sexes? If this comes across as me trying to be cute and petty, I apologise, it's really not the intention. I'm genuinely a bit confused (which I guess was my issue in the first place). There are intricacies with language that I have yet to grasp, I suppose, and this is one of them.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 Again, ask yourself would I refer to a gay man as "a something" if the answer is no, that's your red light clue to realise that referring to a woman as "a something" is a bad idea. 

I mean "a something" as in "a homosexual". I'd absolutely refer to a gay man as a homosexual, and I don't think I'd come across as homophobic. Once again, though, you've used "woman", when the matter in question is "promiscuous person". So, I'd have been referring to a promiscuous person as "a something", with the sex of the person having nothing to do with it.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I'm just saying that though some of those things you listed are pretty easy choices in life to fix, others are really not. All come from deeply ingrained thought processes, things which we had no control over, & cultural normalcy.  

That's fair, and a good point, honestly. But just because someone was raised to, say, be a racist, that doesn't mean I should somehow be approving of the fact that they're a racist, does it? It may not entirely be their fault, but that doesn't mean we "shouldn't judge".

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Lastly I'd ask is Arrianne Promiscuous anyway?  define it. How many people must one have had sex with the be counted as promiscuous? Are there extenuating circumstances which might allow for that number to be exceeded and not cause one to be considered promiscuous? 

I would consider her to be promiscuous. I would define promiscuity as having sex with people that you don't really care for. So, examples of promiscuous behaviour would be hooking up with someone you met that night, or manipulating someone with sex, despite having no level of commitment to them (that'd be Arianne's behaviour toward Arys). So, sex without commitment, I suppose. Sex without emotional connection. As for how many of these sexual encounters it'd take to be considered promiscuous, I haven't a clue. But I suppose it's easier to say that someone is promiscuous, rather than to say that they show promiscuous behaviour on occasion. And I suppose that promiscuity isn't necessarily everlasting, either. Someone can be promiscuous, having many such transient relationships over some amount of time, then (for example) become a priest, swear vows of celibacy, and never have sex again; I would hardly consider them promiscuous, though I would consider them to have a promiscuous history.

2 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

And ultimately, why is being promiscuous considered to be a bad thing? 

I suppose you're asking why I consider it to be bad? I wouldn't presume to speak as to why anyone else would. As for myself, there are many reasons. It's somewhat unclean, for one; the spread of sexually transmitted infections, for instance. The chance that such behaviour will lead to unwanted pregnancies; having a child with someone you barely know is a horrible idea, and it's not a nice situation in which to bring up a child (of course birth control exists, but it's certainly not 100%. Then, if push comes to shove, there's abortion, which I'm not against, exactly, but that's another issue). That's a relatively large part of it; some people are far to young (emotionally if not otherwise), or otherwise unready to be having children, yet it's something that happens, and it has a large impact on the life of the child. The fragility of the mind; I'm sure we've all heard stories of someone's lover cheating on them (mostly a product of promiscuity). The anger, the sadness of such people. People driven to murder, people driven to suicide. Yes, that's not entirely the fault of the promiscuous party. At the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions, and it's they who are at fault should they kill themselves or someone else. That doesn't mean, however, that the thing that triggered such a reaction isn't at fault at all. There's a share of the blame. How many people would be alive today if nobody ever cheated on their partners? That, however, is more of my problem with people cheating on their partners (and I do find issue with that), rather than just general promiscuity, but it is somewhat linked.

But the big reason is that I consider sex to be an incredibly intimate act, one that should ideally only be shared with someone you love. The intimacy, the (literal and figurative) vulnerability, hell, the sharing of bodily fluids. It's wonderful, it's disgusting, it's so, so personal, and the idea of just sharing that with anyone (well, not literally just anyone, I know that. Promiscuity doesn't imply lack of standards. Just a figure of speech), being so open with just anyone, is just something I find so very disturbing. That's certainly the reason I'm not promiscuous.

That isn't to say, however, that I think that all people should be like me. Not at all. The variety to be found among people is another part of what makes humanity so great. I simply disapprove. If people are happy how they are, more power to them. I don't approve of such behaviour, but if it makes people happy, I have absolutely no desire to get in the way of it. But that doesn't mean I'll approve, and it certainly doesn't meant that I won't voice my opinion.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

2 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

snip

Quote

That's fair enough. The issue is that I suppose I didn't really think that the term itself is inherently sexist; I thought it was a (rather harsh) descriptor of a promiscuous woman, that was usually used in a sexist way (and certainly was the main use of it in it's time). I suppose that I'm wrong (or at least that you believe I'm wrong), and that it really can't be used without being seen as sexist (or without being sexist). Hm. Bears thought, at least.

The term is most definitely inherently sexist.  It is a synonym or whore. When you throw the accusation of Harlot at a woman, you are describer her as a prostitute.  Now many words for prostitutes have slipped into the lexicon of the English language as slurs against women in general? the answer is dozens. Harlot is something a cheated wife may call her spouses lover. In general it tends to be thrown about when a woman engages in sexual contact with a man who is off limits. Or at a woman who has sex outside of wedlock in general. It isn't "usually" used in a sexist way, it is always used in a sexist way, because it carries with it a long history of the sexual double standard in society. You can not use the word Harlot in a non sexist manor. 

Quote

Doesn't take much pondering. It's obviously because it was only seen as wrong for women to be promiscuous; for men, it really wasn't looked down upon. The words are a product of their time, when men really did dominate the world, and women were seen as something to be controlled. The prevailing beliefs of that time are not my beliefs, however.

I'm glad that you grasp that. The very fact though that there are no male equivalent words ought to make you realise that using these words is inherently sexist. 

I'll give you a hint, men still do really dominate the world and a large number of people still do see women as something to be controlled.It is truly not the place to discuss that here though. So I shan't get into it.  But I really do hope that one day you realise these things for yourself.  

Them not being your beliefs is great. But if you don't wish for people to think they are, I would advise against using sexist language. 

Quote

I completely agree that the west isn't the entire world. But, as I believe that equality already exists in the western world (as close as it can get without literally controlling thoughts) I think it rather strange to be pushing for equality in the western world. There are places that would benefit from people pushing for equality, yet so many ignore those places, and push for equality in a place that already has it.

This is exceedingly naive.  And I'll just remind myself that this is really not the place for that discussion. 

Quote

That's somewhat fair, though not really accurate. It wasn't in regards to women, it was in regards to promiscuity. Are there racial or homosexual slurs that signify gender? The thing is, I wouldn't use slurs of any kind for race or sexual orientation, as I don't disapprove of anyone's sexual orientation or race. I do disapprove of promiscuity.

Hmm, Women are a section of society who are subjected to prejudice, especially when it comes to our sexuality. When discussing a woman's sexual promiscuity it is impossible to escape the history and the ongoing cultural struggle for equality of sexuality. If you wish to discuss sexual promiscuity and infer that you disapprove of it for both genders, then it is vital to avoid heavily loaded sexist terms.  When inferring disapproval of a woman's sexual choices it is also important to bear in mind that because of that history, and ongoing struggle, that you will be judged.  If say, in referring to a gay man, you did call him a fag, you would be judged to be homophobic.  And if you wished to let the person you are speaking to know the mans sexual orientation but not infer homophobia, it would be advisable to say simply, he is gay. or he is homosexual. 

So when referring to a woman's sexual activity, and not wishing to come over as sexist, then simply say, she has had many sexual partners, or she is promiscuous.  Don't go using a slur which implies that your disapproval is gender based. But I'd bear in mind, that simply disapproving of a women's sexual partner number, will likely get you judged. Because the situation regarding women's sexuality is so heavily problematic.  The word slut is used to imply worthlessness, based upon the woman's status as having had an arbitrary number of sexual partners, or even just being a person who enjoys sex, or who willingly engages in certain sex acts.  Because women's value is so strongly linked to the perceived exclusivity of access to her body. The level of fucked up ness connected to women and sex in our culture is enormous! 

So when you voice disapproval of female sexual promiscuity, you evoke all of that. Whether you intend to do so or not. But the use of such strong gendered slurs, really amps it up.

Quote

So I guess here's my issue. I felt that I should've used a slur (to express my disapproval) but promiscuous isn't a slur. It's just a descriptor. So, the only slurs for promiscuity are inherently sexist slurs? And they're inherently sexist because they're the only gendered slurs for promiscuity? None referring to men? I think I find this a bit confusing. Hypothetically, if there were male gendered slurs for promiscuity, and I was willing to use those and the female gendered slurs, would that make me a sexist against both men and women, or would they no longer be considered sexist as there are slurs for both sexes? If this comes across as me trying to be cute and petty, I apologise, it's really not the intention. I'm genuinely a bit confused (which I guess was my issue in the first place). There are intricacies with language that I have yet to grasp, I suppose, and this is one of them.

The fact that you recognise that the word promiscuous is a descriptor, but wished to convey your own disapproval shows the problem. There are no male equivalents because men's sexuality has never been held to the same restriction as women. They are inherently sexist because they have been used as words to subjugate and control women throughout history.  If there were male gendered slurs for promiscuity, it would be because men had been subjected to being controlled via their sexuality. But they have not, so even if you invented some solely male slurs they would never hold the same weight or meaning. And the ones used against women would still mean what they mean, and be representative of all that has been done to us.  Using them would still be sexist. 

I agree, there are many intricacies of language, and this is one. I hope you gain from this experience. 

Quote

I mean "a something" as in "a homosexual". I'd absolutely refer to a gay man as a homosexual, and I don't think I'd come across as homophobic. Once again, though, you've used "woman", when the matter in question is "promiscuous person". So, I'd have been referring to a promiscuous person as "a something", with the sex of the person having nothing to do with it.

I've used woman because the matter at hand is women, Arrianne is a woman, and your phrasing referred to her.  Yes you are correct, you can call a gay man a homosexual without being homophobic about it. The "a something" here is "promiscuous person"  But as that person is a woman, we say "A promiscuous woman" And I'll bring you back round to this quote from yourself in order to illustrate the problem with Harlot and or Slut or any other word of that type. 

Quote

but promiscuous isn't a slur. It's just a descriptor.

Exactly! just as homosexual is not a slur, but fag is. Promiscuous is not a slur, but Slut is.  So if you wish to describe a gay man and not be perceived as homophobic, don't chose the word fag, and if you wish to describe a sexually promiscuous woman and not be perceived as sexist, don't use the word slut, or harlot, or slag, or whatever. 

Quote

would consider her to be promiscuous. I would define promiscuity as having sex with people that you don't really care for. So, examples of promiscuous behaviour would be hooking up with someone you met that night, or manipulating someone with sex, despite having no level of commitment to them (that'd be Arianne's behaviour toward Arys). So, sex without commitment, I suppose. Sex without emotional connection. As for how many of these sexual encounters it'd take to be considered promiscuous, I haven't a clue. But I suppose it's easier to say that someone is promiscuous, rather than to say that they show promiscuous behaviour on occasion. And I suppose that promiscuity isn't necessarily everlasting, either. Someone can be promiscuous, having many such transient relationships over some amount of time, then (for example) become a priest, swear vows of celibacy, and never have sex again; I would hardly consider them promiscuous, though I would consider them to have a promiscuous history.

So Arrianne has sex with people whom she doesn't really care for? And how do we know this? We are in her head, and I think we can see she cared for the people whom we know her to have had sex with. Though we can see also that she will happily use her sexuality to persuade men to do things she wants of them, Whilst she is not in love with Arys, and is undoubtedly manipulating him, I don't think this behaviour in itself can be described as promiscuous.  I'd more call it manipulative. And I can understand the disapproval of that behaviour, because it is dishonest. She seeks to deceive him, by implying she would wed him. She would not be able to swing a wedding to a KG knight, the entire realm would fight it The institution is sacred.  But I think Arys knows this too, and I also doubt that he loves her, he doesn't really know her, he wants her, but that is not the same thing. I think he wants to justify his vow breaking, buy telling himself he would not have done it if not for "true love".  But deception and manipulation are not promiscuity. Promiscuity is having sex with many partners, usually outside of long term committed relationships.  I think you have mislabelled what you find problematic about the Arys/Arrianne relationship.  And whilst I believe you when you say you disapprove of casual sex in general, I think the main bone of contention here is in her deception.  

And yes people can go through promiscuous periods in their lives, and then totally stop.  And that's OK to. 

Quote

I suppose you're asking why I consider it to be bad? I wouldn't presume to speak as to why anyone else would. As for myself, there are many reasons. It's somewhat unclean, for one; the spread of sexually transmitted infections, for instance. The chance that such behaviour will lead to unwanted pregnancies; having a child with someone you barely know is a horrible idea, and it's not a nice situation in which to bring up a child (of course birth control exists, but it's certainly not 100%. Then, if push comes to shove, there's abortion, which I'm not against, exactly, but that's another issue). That's a relatively large part of it; some people are far to young (emotionally if not otherwise), or otherwise unready to be having children, yet it's something that happens, and it has a large impact on the life of the child. The fragility of the mind; I'm sure we've all heard stories of someone's lover cheating on them (mostly a product of promiscuity). The anger, the sadness of such people. People driven to murder, people driven to suicide. Yes, that's not entirely the fault of the promiscuous party. At the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions, and it's they who are at fault should they kill themselves or someone else. That doesn't mean, however, that the thing that triggered such a reaction isn't at fault at all. There's a share of the blame. How many people would be alive today if nobody ever cheated on their partners? That, however, is more of my problem with people cheating on their partners (and I do find issue with that), rather than just general promiscuity, but it is somewhat linked.

ut the big reason is that I consider sex to be an incredibly intimate act, one that should ideally only be shared with someone you love. The intimacy, the (literal and figurative) vulnerability, hell, the sharing of bodily fluids. It's wonderful, it's disgusting, it's so, so personal, and the idea of just sharing that with anyone (well, not literally just anyone, I know that. Promiscuity doesn't imply lack of standards. Just a figure of speech), being so open with just anyone, is just something I find so very disturbing. That's certainly the reason I'm not promiscuous.

That isn't to say, however, that I think that all people should be like me. Not at all. The variety to be found among people is another part of what makes humanity so great. I simply disapprove. If people are happy how they are, more power to them. I don't approve of such behaviour, but if it makes people happy, I have absolutely no desire to get in the way of it. But that doesn't mean I'll approve, and it certainly doesn't meant that I won't voice my opinion.

Thanks for answering, I always find others thoughts interesting. I hope that you have learnt a thing or two about how the words we chose send messages and that just as we ought to be careful who we have sex with and what precautions we take when doing so. That we ought to be careful about which words we chose too. 

[Lifestream]

Maybe those moments aren't exactly romantic or erotic, but some are intimate and others open the way for something more romantic to happen. Sorry if this confuses anyone.

 

I personally really like this part from aSoS between Jaime and Brienne. It's not really romantic at all, but it's such a small detail and I think the very first time Jaime's opinion of Brienne changes slightly.

 

Quote

When they reached the burned village, a choice of equally unpromising roads confronted them; narrow tracks, deeply rutted by the carts of farmers hauling their grain to the river. One wandered off toward the southeast and soon vanished amidst the trees they could see in the distance, while the other, straighter and stonier, arrowed due south. Brienne considered them briefly, and then swung her horse onto the southern road. Jaime was pleasantly surprised; it was the same choice he would have made.

-A Storm of Swords, Chapter 11

I actually like and find many moments between Jaime and Brienne romantic. I will not go with him saving Brienne from the bear, since it's an obvious choice. But I will go with the dream he had prior to that. Jaime is all alone and pretty much abandoned by the Lannisters and somehow Brienne appears on his side to aid him.

 

And last but not least, I was really touched by the scene between Sansa and Sandor before he left. Kinda cheapens it in my opinion that Sansa only remembers the kiss(that never happened).

Quote

Some instinct made her lift her hand and cup his cheek with her fingers. The room was too dark for her to see him, but she could feel the stickiness of the blood, and a wetness that was not blood. "Little bird," he said once more, his voice raw and harsh as steel on stone. Then he rose from the bed. Sansa heard cloth ripping, followed by the softer sound of retreating footsteps.

-A Clash of Kings, Chapter 62

 

[LindsayLohan]

What a fucking nerd fight.  You two need to get a room.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

23 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Hi there @cyberdirectorfreedom I've pulled out the bits from your post which I feel will be relevant. 

 

First off I thought I'd address this. yes to me if you are only a few years out of your teenage years, you are still "quite young" but then, to another person - me in my mid thirties, am probably considered "quite young". So it is indeed subjective. But for the purposes of this discussion, it is my opinion which matters. As you are the subject and I am the commentator. So yeah you are quite young in my opinion. 

I can see how you consider yourself an intellectual, You have some very good points, for instance I totally agree with your comments regarding the definition of love. I'm frequently to be found on this forum discussing the complexity of love, and the fact that no one gets to define it for another person, as love is what love is to them. I find this comes up often when discussing SanSan for instance. As no matter the level of discomfort some readers have with the idea of this relationship, they don't get to say, well it can't be "love" .Ditto for Jaime and Cersei sometimes love is toxic, and sometimes it is inappropriate but it can't be pinned down to a PC version of morally sanctioned love. To do so is condescending and ignorant.

But I think you have a way to go on the intellect ladder, I think your responses in this thread show that. Now allow me to demonstrate. (and please take this in the gentle, well meaning, and educational manor it is intended. I in no way am attempting to express scorn or ridicule here.) 

Yes, my entire comment is about sexism, as this was the issue I wished to address with you. As I previously said, I did not think you fully understood the connotations of the words you chose. I would advise, if not wishing to come across as sexist, that one refrain from using sexist; gendered slurs.  Such as Harlot & the infinitely more repulsive Slut.  You say that your issue is with promiscuity in general, and in your mind it may well be. I can't tell, as the language you chose to use is specifically aimed at women. The sex whom historically have had their sexuality cowed and controlled, not in small part via the language which you chose to use.  Therefore I chose to point out how problematic this language is, when discussing women and sex. 

Here I think we can get to the crux of the issue. You recognise yourself that the words which you chose are problematic, but felt that avoiding those words simply did not have the same gravitas.  Here's the big neon flashing light take home message *** There is a reason for that*** The reason that those words hold weight as descriptors is their history, and all the ugly sexist, controlling BS that they hold. They have the weight that you were seeking precisely because they have been used to destroy women throughout history. There is no other reason they hold so much power! 

So when you decided that your wording required gendered slurs, you were deciding that you wanted to convey the entire history of the theft of women's sexuality.  It was subconscious, I am almost certain, as you have asserted time and again that you did not wish to come across as sexist.  There is an unconscious code surrounding language one which we understand from a young age, some words convey certain things. They hold weight, you've understood that here, but haven't stopped to think if the weight of those words is really what your intent is. 

There is a reason that these words have no male equivalent.  I think you are intelligent, so I shall just leave it at that and allow you to ponder on the why of that. 

I too disagree, but you are right. This is not the place for that discussion. Though I rather hope that given time and maturity you may come to realise that laws do not equal a reality of equality. And that we indeed do have a long way to go. Everything is tinged with the millennia of sexism this world has developed through.  And not to mention that "the west" ain't the whole world by a long chalk. I feel ASOIAF in particular points this out to it's readers. When you really start thinking about it. 

I'm going to make a small suggestion here, If you wouldn't use the corresponding word in regards to race or homosexuality. Don't use it in regards to women.  There are indeed other more correct (if one wishes not to come across as a sexist) ways to refer to promiscuity. The very word promiscuous being the obvious one.  Yes you absolutely should re-structure the sentence to not refer to them as " a something".  Again, ask yourself would I refer to a gay man as "a something" if the answer is no, that's your red light clue to realise that referring to a woman as "a something" is a bad idea. 

You say that after considering all of this you decided to go with Harlot, as it seemed to be the most appropriate. And that you did this knowing the history behind the word.  I'm going to propose that though you knew the history, that you did not understand it. 

And that as you still feel that these words are appropriate to be used, when not wishing to convey the deeply rooted and damaging sexual double standard which they evoke, that you still do not fully understand it. 

Hmmm, there is an argument regarding choice to be made for quite a few of those, and it often comes back to childhoods and maturity to grasp the error of your thought processes, or damage done.  Often how one "chooses" to be has been moulded frombirth and takes a HUGE amount of effort, understanding, and therapy to alter.  I'm not saying that they are as unalterable as being gay. I'm just saying that though some of those things you listed are pretty easy choices in life to fix, others are really not. All come from deeply ingrained thought processes, things which we had no control over, & cultural normalcy.  

 

Lastly I'd ask is Arrianne Promiscuous anyway?  define it. How many people must one have had sex with the be counted as promiscuous? Are there extenuating circumstances which might allow for that number to be exceeded and not cause one to be considered promiscuous? 

And ultimately, why is being promiscuous considered to be a bad thing? 

 

16 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

The term is most definitely inherently sexist.  It is a synonym or whore. When you throw the accusation of Harlot at a woman, you are describer her as a prostitute.  Now many words for prostitutes have slipped into the lexicon of the English language as slurs against women in general? the answer is dozens. Harlot is something a cheated wife may call her spouses lover. In general it tends to be thrown about when a woman engages in sexual contact with a man who is off limits. Or at a woman who has sex outside of wedlock in general. It isn't "usually" used in a sexist way, it is always used in a sexist way, because it carries with it a long history of the sexual double standard in society. You can not use the word Harlot in a non sexist manor. 

I'm glad that you grasp that. The very fact though that there are no male equivalent words ought to make you realise that using these words is inherently sexist. 

I'll give you a hint, men still do really dominate the world and a large number of people still do see women as something to be controlled.It is truly not the place to discuss that here though. So I shan't get into it.  But I really do hope that one day you realise these things for yourself.  

Them not being your beliefs is great. But if you don't wish for people to think they are, I would advise against using sexist language. 

This is exceedingly naive.  And I'll just remind myself that this is really not the place for that discussion. 

Hmm, Women are a section of society who are subjected to prejudice, especially when it comes to our sexuality. When discussing a woman's sexual promiscuity it is impossible to escape the history and the ongoing cultural struggle for equality of sexuality. If you wish to discuss sexual promiscuity and infer that you disapprove of it for both genders, then it is vital to avoid heavily loaded sexist terms.  When inferring disapproval of a woman's sexual choices it is also important to bear in mind that because of that history, and ongoing struggle, that you will be judged.  If say, in referring to a gay man, you did call him a fag, you would be judged to be homophobic.  And if you wished to let the person you are speaking to know the mans sexual orientation but not infer homophobia, it would be advisable to say simply, he is gay. or he is homosexual. 

So when referring to a woman's sexual activity, and not wishing to come over as sexist, then simply say, she has had many sexual partners, or she is promiscuous.  Don't go using a slur which implies that your disapproval is gender based. But I'd bear in mind, that simply disapproving of a women's sexual partner number, will likely get you judged. Because the situation regarding women's sexuality is so heavily problematic.  The word slut is used to imply worthlessness, based upon the woman's status as having had an arbitrary number of sexual partners, or even just being a person who enjoys sex, or who willingly engages in certain sex acts.  Because women's value is so strongly linked to the perceived exclusivity of access to her body. The level of fucked up ness connected to women and sex in our culture is enormous! 

So when you voice disapproval of female sexual promiscuity, you evoke all of that. Whether you intend to do so or not. But the use of such strong gendered slurs, really amps it up.

The fact that you recognise that the word promiscuous is a descriptor, but wished to convey your own disapproval shows the problem. There are no male equivalents because men's sexuality has never been held to the same restriction as women. They are inherently sexist because they have been used as words to subjugate and control women throughout history.  If there were male gendered slurs for promiscuity, it would be because men had been subjected to being controlled via their sexuality. But they have not, so even if you invented some solely male slurs they would never hold the same weight or meaning. And the ones used against women would still mean what they mean, and be representative of all that has been done to us.  Using them would still be sexist. 

I agree, there are many intricacies of language, and this is one. I hope you gain from this experience. 

I've used woman because the matter at hand is women, Arrianne is a woman, and your phrasing referred to her.  Yes you are correct, you can call a gay man a homosexual without being homophobic about it. The "a something" here is "promiscuous person"  But as that person is a woman, we say "A promiscuous woman" And I'll bring you back round to this quote from yourself in order to illustrate the problem with Harlot and or Slut or any other word of that type. 

Exactly! just as homosexual is not a slur, but fag is. Promiscuous is not a slur, but Slut is.  So if you wish to describe a gay man and not be perceived as homophobic, don't chose the word fag, and if you wish to describe a sexually promiscuous woman and not be perceived as sexist, don't use the word slut, or harlot, or slag, or whatever. 

So Arrianne has sex with people whom she doesn't really care for? And how do we know this? We are in her head, and I think we can see she cared for the people whom we know her to have had sex with. Though we can see also that she will happily use her sexuality to persuade men to do things she wants of them, Whilst she is not in love with Arys, and is undoubtedly manipulating him, I don't think this behaviour in itself can be described as promiscuous.  I'd more call it manipulative. And I can understand the disapproval of that behaviour, because it is dishonest. She seeks to deceive him, by implying she would wed him. She would not be able to swing a wedding to a KG knight, the entire realm would fight it The institution is sacred.  But I think Arys knows this too, and I also doubt that he loves her, he doesn't really know her, he wants her, but that is not the same thing. I think he wants to justify his vow breaking, buy telling himself he would not have done it if not for "true love".  But deception and manipulation are not promiscuity. Promiscuity is having sex with many partners, usually outside of long term committed relationships.  I think you have mislabelled what you find problematic about the Arys/Arrianne relationship.  And whilst I believe you when you say you disapprove of casual sex in general, I think the main bone of contention here is in her deception.  

And yes people can go through promiscuous periods in their lives, and then totally stop.  And that's OK to. 

Thanks for answering, I always find others thoughts interesting. I hope that you have learnt a thing or two about how the words we chose send messages and that just as we ought to be careful who we have sex with and what precautions we take when doing so. That we ought to be careful about which words we chose too. 

The Weirwoods' Eyes. Well said. I think you basically said everything I wanted to, but in a much more eloquent way. I just wanted to say everything you said is amazing and you were extremely patient. I am just impressed. Anyways, I will only add that cyberdirectfreedom will also be able to, in time, realize that individual sexism stems from institutionalized sexism and that it is indeed, still a problem in the Western World. 

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

@Lord of Raventree Hall

Thank you very much. 

[rotting sea cow]

On 12/8/2016 at 10:42 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

 

Thank you very much.  It really is, and that is what I love so much about these books. They are astonishingly multi layered and thought provoking. You can read them and just skim it, enjoying the twists, turns, and battles. Or you can dive in and get some amazing insight into the human condition. 

Welcome, regarding the controversy about Arianne's alleged promiscuity, I believe that these things are planted in the book just to confuse some souls and overlook the real moral issues with the character. Arianne is basically a Cersei in the making, with even less justification, as she hasn't suffered abuse by her father and husband. Arianne's power schemes and contempt towards her father and brother will drive her and Dorne to their ruin. Of course Doran is not innocent in this.

[Lifestream]

5 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Welcome, regarding the controversy about Arianne's alleged promiscuity, I believe that these things are planted in the book just to confuse some souls and overlook the real moral issues with the character. Arianne is basically a Cersei in the making, with even less justification, as she hasn't suffered abuse by her father and husband. Arianne's power schemes and contempt towards her father and brother will drive her and Dorne to their ruin. Of course Doran is not innocent in this.

That's actually a rather interesting take on Arianne. So far I don't really understand her point other than giving us a glimpse inside Dorne. Though I'd be a bit disappointed if she really was ONLY a Cersei in the making as we already have a Cersei.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

On 12/9/2016 at 11:25 AM, LindsayLohan said:

What a fucking nerd fight.  You two need to get a room.

It's not a fight, it's a discussion. Much of the discussion being about my disapproval of casual sex. The two of us "getting a room" would make me a complete hypocrite, which is only one of the reasons your suggestion makes no sense. Do grow up.

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

And if you wished to let the person you are speaking to know the mans sexual orientation but not infer homophobia, it would be advisable to say simply, he is gay. or he is homosexual. 

So when referring to a woman's sexual activity, and not wishing to come over as sexist, then simply say, she has had many sexual partners, or she is promiscuous.

I somewhat take issue with this, and I think this is the crux of the issue (to be clear, the crux of the issue is what I discuss after the next quotes. This is just part of it). I wished to imply my disapproval of promiscuity (not female promiscuity), and referring to someone as promiscuous doesn't do that. To refer to a gay person as a fag obviously implies homophobia, but I clearly didn't realise that calling someone a harlot implied sexism. I had simply thought it implied disapproval of promiscuity. Evidently, that this isn't so. It doesn't imply disapproval of promiscuity at all, but implies disapproval of female promiscuity, but only female promiscuity. Which is, obviously, sexist. As to why I didn't think so:

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

discussing a woman's sexual promiscuity

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

When inferring disapproval of a woman's sexual choices

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Because the situation regarding women's sexuality is so heavily problematic.

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I've used woman because the matter at hand is women

All these quotes, to me (especially the bolded), insinuate that you believe it's impossible to talk about a woman's sexuality without the fact that she's a woman being an important part of the discussion. I don't share this belief, and as such, the fact that Arianne is a woman was the furthest thing from my mind, in my disapproval of her actions. So when I used harlot, I meant it to show disapproval of promiscuity; the fact that it referenced her gender wasn't part of my decision; 'Arianne is a woman, so why not refer to her as one?' I thought. Perhaps in the same way that I might use the word waitress. Yes, it references gender, but (at least to me) there's no negative connotation, nothing that insinuates that they're anything less because they're a woman. All it does is let someone know that they're a woman, and part of the waitstaff. Now, of course waitress isn't inherently a negative term, but I would say it could be used negatively, but without being sexist; 'you're just a waitress', for instance, implies disapproval of their job, but not of their sex.

So that's why I believed that harlot was only usually used in a sexist manner, but could be used otherwise. Obviously (and as you've stated) you don't believe it can be. I don't share your belief. I firmly believe that the matter of sexuality, even a woman's sexuality, can be discussed and even criticised without gender ever really coming into the equation, yet still being mentioned (which is to say, not dancing around the topic of gender, but not having it be part of the issue). Whether or not the word harlot can be used without being sexist, well, I suppose that's not really important. If it can't be, I attempted to use it in a way that isn't possible. If it can be, it led to you (and others) to misconstrue my true meaning. As such, regardless of whether or not it can be used without being sexist, I don't think it's possible to use it without being seen as sexist, nor without causing offense. I have absolutely no wish to cause offense to anyone. As such, I won't be describing anyone as a harlot in the future, as it will cause offense, to someone.

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Whilst she is not in love with Arys, and is undoubtedly manipulating him, I don't think this behaviour in itself can be described as promiscuous. I'd more call it manipulative.

I really think it can. Arys could've literally been any man in his position, and she still would've done the same thing, which is to say, attempt to manipulate with sex. That sounds rather promiscuous to me. Even if she liked Arys, what if it were Balon or Boros that was sent with Myrcella? She'd likely have tried the same tactic. So even if she cared about Arys (which I heartily disagree with), the fact that he was Arys didn't even matter. Definitely manipulative, but I wouldn't say that precludes it from being promiscuous.

Also, there's the way she acts. For instance, this quote of her thinking about Darkstar.

Arianne watched him warily. He is highborn enough to make a worthy consort, she thought.

When you are in a committed relationship you don't go about thinking how good of a match you'd make with others. Sex without commitment was one of the things that I described as promiscuous behaviour.

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I think you have mislabelled what you find problematic about the Arys/Arrianne relationship.  And whilst I believe you when you say you disapprove of casual sex in general, I think the main bone of contention here is in her deception.

Oh, that's definitely my big issue with their relationship. She treated him like he was nothing, toyed with his emotions to get what she wanted. Truly a horrible, horrible thing to do to someone (which is why I'd say that Arianne doesn't really care about Arys). My issue with promiscuity is a larger issue, not one specific to this one situation, however. Arianne's manipulations are specific, however, and I suppose that's why I didn't mention it as much, as I was mostly speaking in broader terms.

On 12/9/2016 at 4:56 AM, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Thanks for answering, I always find others thoughts interesting. I hope that you have learnt a thing or two about how the words we chose send messages and that just as we ought to be careful who we have sex with and what precautions we take when doing so. That we ought to be careful about which words we chose too. 

No problem. I too am always pleased to hear others thoughts, and I have indeed come to realise that I should be more careful with my words. The discussions we've had have certainly given me a look into a new perspective, so I thank you for that. It was truly a pleasure to have this discussion with you.

16 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

and you were extremely patient.

I agree! You have been awfully patient. Now, I suppose there's no reason not to be, really, but so often I see discussions in which everyone just gets angry and hateful towards one another, or in which one side stops trying to prevent coherent replies and just descends into mindless name-calling and insults, and it's sad to see. People can have disagreements but still be genial towards each other, and it's always nice to see. Thank you.

[FacelessDude]

The love that Tyrion & Tysha shared for a fortnight in a cottage on the shores of the Sunset Sea is a great romance.

 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Robert visiting Lyanna's  tomb .

[Kingslayah]

Asha and Qarl. 

I feel like Tyene would be a lovely mate. I hope she has a bigger role in tWoW.