Virginity: Important of Chastity in Westeros

[Protagoras]

59 minutes ago, maudisdottir said:

Pride & Prejudice is a poor example if you're trying to prove virginity and reputation aren't important.  The entire second half of the book has the family (and Darcy) scrambling to save Lydia's reputation, otherwise the family would be ruined and none of the Bennett girls would be able to make good marriages or even remain in Society.  Darcy would never consider a girl like Lizzy if she had already been with another man.

So yes, absolutely Mr Darcy would have discarded Elizabeth if he had discovered she had a past.

Please, the man basically comes begging for her mid-book despite doing his best to destroy Janes chances earlier in the novel (seriously, he didn´t thought that would lead to consequences!). He clearly can´t be at a logical level at that point. At the end, he has already mentally modified his horror of her family as well as her lower status. He is clearly looking for reasons to make this work.

As for Lydia, that doesn´t really seem to be the case. I know the book makes a big show out of this (so Darcy can redeem himself) but everyone of importance seem to know that Lydia is a boy crazy strumpet. Darcy is certainly all in, and he by default controls Mr Bingely so all marriages seems to be safe. Its very hard to take it at face value that the rest of the Bennett girls honour is smeared by presumption of impunity when we know how Darcy reacts to it (certainly, the first-time reader can´t know, but that doesn´t really change my point) and that both their marriages would have been saved, and this is why I have a hard time taking Jaaks idea about "What if she cheats me" at face value. People KNOW different sisters act different both in Westeros and in Austins books. In practice, people won´t blame what Arya does on Sansa and vice versa unless they are crazy or a political enemy.

And don´t forget it is war-time in the books (very much in the background, I know). The military created a gender imbalance - lots of women are lacking boyfriends, fiancés and husbands because they all went off to have military careers. If this wasn´t the case then the competition would be much easier. Add to this that Austin have some strange arbitary inheritance rules (The Bennet girls can´t inherit but another woman seen later in the book could, wtf!)

[1000th Lord Commander]

I think chastity is considered important in Westeros. A woman who is known for sleeping with somone else, or producing a bastard, will not marry as well as the same woman who is innocent and virginial.

Let's take the two cousins, Selyse and Delena Florent

Selyse marries up, she marries Stannis and is a presumed virgin at her wedding day. This is done at command of King Robert, to try and bind the houses of Westeros together once more, but still, it's a good catch for her, and I can't think that she was the only option Robert had for his brother.

Delena is the mother of a bastard by King Robert, and therefore of tarnished reputation. While she does get a offer from Tywin for Tyrion, (note that Tywin says he 'stooped low enough' to make the offer) She marries down, to one of her father's knights.

There's probably other examples, but that is the best one I can think of. It's still a fairly clear lesson: Ladies who expect to marry well better keep thier legs closed, or at least be discreet about it.

[Kaibaman]

On 06/01/2017 at 9:45 PM, Gertrude said:

It seems that the norm for Houses that follow the Seven (most of them), chastity is important as you would expect. The Faith is similar enough to the Christian tradition that feel fairly comfortable roughly equating the two. So there is a religious aspect to it - the charges against Marge show that. And obviously paternity plays into it. The outliers seem to be the Mormont women, Asha and the Dornish.

We don't really have any good information about the North and those who follow the old gods. We mainly see the Starks and Cat has a lot of influence here with her Southern views. Rickard Stark perhaps also had Southron ambitions, so what we see here isn't necessarily typical of the Northern houses. I'd imagine they roughly follow the Southern view, but I also kind of expect there to be more outliers as well - the Mormont women being the prime example. The wildlings follow the old gods and put no religious value on it, so if the Northern houses value it, it must be influence from the South, or to protect their inheritance.

Asha is kind of her own animal - she has been treated as the heir, and thus above the usual rules. We don't know what the Drowned God has to say about it. If she expects to inherit, then she doesn't have the worry about paternity that a male ruler would have. Same goes with Arianne. She and Asha are in privileged positions and can afford to flaunt tradition to a degree. With Dorne, however, it does seem to be a more accepting culture. We haven't really seen it coming into conflict with the rest of Westeros, so either they are not quite so different than the rest of Westeros after all, or the other families that have married Dornish women just accept it.

But, as others have said, daughters are bargaining chips. Sure, you can overlook a few things is the house is connected enough. If you have your pick of the litter, however, why go with a used model when you can buy new? (bleah!) Ambitious fathers would want their daughters to present their best selves, and that is a pretty face who can dance and sew and run a household and be devoted to her new husband and their children without the ghost of a past lover looming.

Have we seen examples of women having sex/children out of wedlock in the lower classes? With a fairly reliable abortifacient and nothing important to inherit, I'd expect that the common folk would have much less of a problem with promiscuity, unless it really is just ingrained as a sin against the Faith.

(and of course this is all referring to chastity being valued as a societal ideal. In reality, sex is gonna happen all over the place. That's another reason women were married young - gives them less time to fight against human nature)

Yep ultimately it doesn't have that much to do with whether the women have been broken into before but everything to do with their reputation as well as that of their family. Even today there is still a lot of stigma towards women getting pregnant out of wedlock and its the reason why we still have shotgun weddings. In the past whenever young noble ladies from important families get caught sleeping around. Depending on the circumstances their family would try to kill off their lover sometimes by public lynching or done secretly to avoid a scandal. Of course if that's not a viable option, they could get accused of rape which also helps to preserve the virtue of the girl in question. And of course there are times when the poor girl gets confined to a convent either permanently or for a short period of time to do penance so that they will come out a "good girl" again.

[Lady Lia]

4 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Add to this that Austin have some strange arbitary inheritance rules (The Bennet girls can´t inherit but another woman seen later in the book could, wtf!)

Not arbitrary, not Austen's invention either. The Bennet estate was entailed in the male line, the de Bourgh estate wasn't entailed. It's discussed a couple of times in the text.

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She did it with her own free will, it wasn't the society which forced her to do it.  Also we don't even know why she did it. It was because she felt in love with him and she was abandoned or because she was simple-minded.

Possible. But Yandel fails to suggest this: his words were "leaving her with nothing but a growing belly." Suggesting that her birth and her mother´s love were not worth much.

Compare her sister Saera, who had left a sept rather than marriage... and felt necessary to go and stay in Essos. First Lys, in the end a madam in Volantis.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Possible. But Yandel fails to suggest this: his words were "leaving her with nothing but a growing belly." Suggesting that her birth and her mother´s love were not worth much.

Compare her sister Saera, who had left a sept rather than marriage... and felt necessary to go and stay in Essos. First Lys, in the end a madam in Volantis.

And we also we have Elaena who not only wasn't a virgin but she even had bastards and married with lords.

[maudisdottir]

12 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Please, the man basically comes begging for her mid-book despite doing his best to destroy Janes chances earlier in the novel (seriously, he didn´t thought that would lead to consequences!). He clearly can´t be at a logical level at that point. At the end, he has already mentally modified his horror of her family as well as her lower status. He is clearly looking for reasons to make this work.

Darcy helps Lizzy because he is in love with her and wants to redeem himself in her eyes; but on a practical level, if he doesn't save Lydia's reputation there is no way he would be able to marry Lizzy.  He's doing it for himself as well as for her, for both of them, otherwise they can't be together.

[Jaak]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And we also we have Elaena who not only wasn't a virgin but she even had bastards and married with lords.

Yes - Aegon IV-s court was quite different from Jaehaerys' court.

But even though Aegon IV legitimized his own bastards, on his deathbed, he did not legitimize Elaena's.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Yes - Aegon IV-s court was quite different from Jaehaerys' court.

Yet according to the majority of the Westerosi Jaehaerys was maybe the greatest King, I don't agree but anyway. Hence his court should had been more liberal and equal than the rest of the Kings. In any case my point still stands we have a princess who had got pregnant and killed herself, the fact that she was simple minded was very important because without it all she needed was moon tea or a convenient marriage, and on the other hand we have a princess with two bastards who had no problem to marry more than one lord.

1 minute ago, Jaak said:

But even though Aegon IV legitimized his own bastards, on his deathbed, he did not legitimize Elaena's.

Why he should had legitimized all the dragonseeds? Did he supposed to legitimize all the bastards in Westeros?

[devilish]

On 05/01/2017 at 9:19 PM, Protagoras said:

To more or less copy-paste my response from the Jeyne thread with some added bonusmaterial:

Chastity is overrated. After all, you make the marriage with a family you want an alliance with so if I am a powerful lord and have a total slut for daugther (but only one, two or maybe maybe three daughters at most) it doesn´t matter if she is a known "horse-rider". She is still the person people need to marry if they want my favor (and my armies, and my trade, and...you get the picture) and that my daughter have had some "fun" with an unsuitable gentleman, that´s the kind of problems I expect to get sooner or later. Gatehouse Ami´s largest problem is not her "hobbies", it is that A. Her hobbies got exposed B. That she is a member in a family with many, many, many family-members and daughters who easily can take her place as well as C. That due to that many members, the lord doesn´t care about you personally. 

So if you are, say Bethany Blackwood, who is the lone daughter in a family who dotes you, you can have all the adult fun you want without any consequences as long as you take your moon tea and at least have some discretion (like, not fucking openly on the road). If you are Gatehouse Ami, you might not have the same leeway, but your blood is still much, much important than your enjoyments - as shown when her Darry blood-connections was used to marry Lancel and become Lady Darry.

I somehow get the picture that while sex isn´t something that is officially approved, flirtation and admiring men for their masculinity certainly is. To act like a lady means to be socially active after all, not being a silent ornament. They are after all raised in a chivalry mythos in a culture focused on breeding. And if you are in Dorne, you have even MORE freedom in this.

Now, I am not saying it has zero value. If a lord has a pick between three sisters on who will become his spouse a virgin might have an advantage. But then, Roose Bolton took the fattest since he wanted money. But at the end it comes down to realpolitik and if my dauther has a reputation, but you want my friendship you will have to marry her. And don´t forget Westeros has no christianity (lucky them!), who calls sex sin. These things are sort of expected - as discussed in the Jeyne thread - the list on women cheating or having premarriage sex is pretty long compared with the number of known married woman faithful (just Catelyn of the people we know) or maiden (and no, Sansa and Arya don´t count - they havn´t flowered yet).

At a time when there was no DNA testing, chastity was everything. 

A- Kings and Lords were thought to be chosen by God to rule.Luxuria was the epitome of sin. Women had to be trusted and 'a women who spread her legs to everybody' (ie a non virgin in medieval terms) couldn't be trusted. A Future lord with question marks over his legitimacy risks internal and external trife as rivals will use that as an excuse to raise a revolt + every crisis (drought, war, sickness) will be blamed upon him. 

B- No Lord want to be succeeded by someone who might not be his son. Genghis Khan never liked Jochi very much and that caused friction between them which might ultimately cause the latter's death

 

c- 

[Protagoras]

11 hours ago, Lady Lia said:

Not arbitrary, not Austen's invention either. The Bennet estate was entailed in the male line, the de Bourgh estate wasn't entailed. It's discussed a couple of times in the text.

Not really, its more understood by all the characters I think to such a degree that Austin have a hard time summaricing the principle well, especially in comparison to The de Bourgh estate and why other rules apply there. Why shouldn´t it be entailed since they are both estates, with interest in not splitting the property up? Or maybe these things was so well understood by common people in Austins time, that there was no idea to explain it further?

As an aside, some relatives of mine has some interest in Pride and Prejudice too, and they always tend to summarize it to "women can´t inherit", which is wrong. People not from a place with British law tradition (who seems to be the most convoluted and complicated system you can possibly think of btw) might have a hard time separating Fee tail and Fee simple, especially when you can have both (!) when it comes to estates. Then again, Sweden do have a rest of it left too. 

[Protagoras]

4 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

Darcy helps Lizzy because he is in love with her and wants to redeem himself in her eyes; but on a practical level, if he doesn't save Lydia's reputation there is no way he would be able to marry Lizzy.  He's doing it for himself as well as for her, for both of them, otherwise they can't be together.

Hah, he can marry Lizzy if he wants too. Apart from Lizzy herself (and maybe, maybe her father), who can stop him? He clearly didn´t care about the shit he most likely got off-screen from Catherine de Bourgh (and most likely others) about her lower status. This is just one more obstacle he would be willing to mentally ignore. There are, as far as I am aware of, no real, legal obstacles apart from others scorn and lack of respect (which he already is willing to suffer). And its not like Lizzie is the one cheating here, but a sister they had as little contact with afterwards as they possibly could (and hardly surprising, since she doesnt strike me as a person with any good qualities). 

And  Mr Bingley is a rich fool, basically controlled by Mr Darcy and without a will of his own. He wouldn´t have cared two shit about exactly what Lydia had done or not done. 

[Jaak]

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet according to the majority of the Westerosi Jaehaerys was maybe the greatest King, I don't agree but anyway. Hence his court should had been more liberal and equal than the rest of the Kings.

And yet he disinherited Aerea, and Rhaenys.

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

In any case my point still stands we have a princess who had got pregnant and killed herself, the fact that she was simple minded was very important because without it all she needed was moon tea or a convenient marriage, and on the other hand we have a princess with two bastards who had no problem to marry more than one lord.

 

Why he should had legitimized all the dragonseeds? Did he supposed to legitimize all the bastards in Westeros?

No. But note how Westeros does not follow the principle of "Mater semper certa est". Generally, a bastard with noble mother does not in Westeros inherit either the surname or status/inheritance of its mother.

[Protagoras]

6 hours ago, devilish said:

At a time when there was no DNA testing, chastity was everything. 

A- Kings and Lords were thought to be chosen by God to rule.Luxuria was the epitome of sin. Women had to be trusted and 'a women who spread her legs to everybody' (ie a non virgin in medieval terms) couldn't be trusted. A Future lord with question marks over his legitimacy risks internal and external trife as rivals will use that as an excuse to raise a revolt + every crisis (drought, war, sickness) will be blamed upon him. 

B- No Lord want to be succeeded by someone who might not be his son. Genghis Khan never liked Jochi very much and that caused friction between them which might ultimately cause the latter's death

 

c- 

Except we don´t see this in Westeros at all. The number of ladies we know or have reason to believe have cheated are high in comparison to those we know have acted loyal (basically Catelyn), we see a higher tolerance for nudity, no christianity, and a lot of realpolitik. 

If chastity is "everything" then that should be shown or its nothing but empty words men say what they prefer in the exact same way people say that they will most certainly train this year alot on the gym to get into good shape..yeah right. 

What we rather have is a very minor preference unless there are some significant evidence (like getting caught in the act, or a child). And even if those evidences exist, people will still do things for power in a higher degree than in our world. Jon Arryn, for example, might have a problem with Lysa, but he has got no real right to complain in the end. Hoster had swords and her wanted those swords. In the end, he choose pragmatism over honor, like 99% of Westeros do. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 minutes ago, Jaak said:

And yet he disinherited Aerea, and Rhaenys.

I don't recall it. All I remember is that Aerea was Maegor heir, which would make sense to be disinherited, and after Maegor's death we don't know what happened to Aerea and Rhalla. Actually it would make sense for the heir's heir to be disinherited in order for the heir's younger brother to take the Throne.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

No. But note how Westeros does not follow the principle of "Mater semper certa est". Generally, a bastard with noble mother does not in Westeros inherit either the surname or status/inheritance of its mother.

You are right but I don't see what that has to do with what I am saying. What I am saying is that if the bride is of higher rank than the groom he wouldn't care if she was a virgin or not and Elaena, who not only wasn't pregnant but also had bastards, is an example.

[devilish]

15 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Except we don´t see this in Westeros at all. The number of ladies we know or have reason to believe have cheated are high in comparison to those we know have acted loyal (basically Catelyn), we see a higher tolerance for nudity, no christianity, and a lot of realpolitik. 

If chastity is "everything" then that should be shown or its nothing but empty words men say what they prefer in the exact same way people say that they will most certainly train this year alot on the gym to get into goos dhape..yeah right. 

What we rather have is a very minor preference unless there are some significant evidence (like getting caught in the act, or a child). And even if those evidences exist, people will still do things for power in a higher degree than in our world. Jon Arryn, for example, might have a problem with Lysa, but he has got no real right to complain in the end. Hoster had swords and her wanted those swords. In the end, he choose pragmatism over honor, like 99% of Westeros do. 

Well actually we do. Question marks about Joffrey's paternity was enough for the Baratheon brothers to rise against him. Question marks about Rhaenyra's children true father didn't helped her cause very much while the Blackfyre rebellion was primarily a war between a true born son who seem not to have his father's consent to rule and a legitimised bastard who did (ie the king gave him Aegon's sword). 

[HoodedCrow]

In the Real world Middle Ages, women had to ride side saddle which was slow and dangerous and often required a guide to prevent the scandalous act of riding, gasp, astride. For centuries they had been required to wear a wimple and a veil, so, gasp, their hair and throat, wouldn't show. Women were required to accept that they were inferior, evil, the cause of original sin, saintly women died for their virginity, as their main desire able attribute, and were required to worship a virgin mother. Joan of arc was burned for cross dressing and witchcraft. Queens of England were charged with witchcraft. There are amitious and successful women role models, in Westeros, who are not automatically vilified for their gender. I think the attitude to women is a ittle softer in Westeros.

[Jaak]

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't recall it. All I remember is that Aerea was Maegor heir, which would make sense to be disinherited, and after Maegor's death we don't know what happened to Aerea and Rhalla. Actually it would make sense for the heir's heir to be disinherited in order for the heir's younger brother to take the Throne.

Yes, the actual fate of Aerea is a glaring omission.

Aerea was Aegon´s heir. Maegor recognized her as his heir, Jaehaerys did not. Jaehaerys could have chosen to marry Aerea. He chose to marry Alysanne and disinherit Aerea instead.

[Protagoras]

4 hours ago, devilish said:

Well actually we do. Question marks about Joffrey's paternity was enough for the Baratheon brothers to rise against him. Question marks about Rhaenyra's children true father didn't helped her cause very much while the Blackfyre rebellion was primarily a war between a true born son who seem not to have his father's consent to rule and a legitimised bastard who did (ie the king gave him Aegon's sword). 

Paternity and chastity/virginity is not the same thing, no matter how much people tries to insist on that BS. To cheat on your partner you are married to has very little bearing on wherether you are a virgin or not when you met said partner. And this discussion is about the value of virginity.

And, none of your example really hold. Joffrey's paternity is not important to wherether or not Cersei was a virgin at their marriage. Nor would it have mattered if Robert really cared. They were married to connect Casterly Rock to the rebels and to win the friendship of Lord Tywin. Cersei could almost have fucked half of Lannisport and that marriage still would have taken place. At minimum, as long as there was discretion from Cerseis side and such rumors never became more than rumors she could have had several affairs if she wishes to, as long as she doesn´t keep them AFTER the marriage (Funny btw that this is yet ANOTHER marriage where the question of virginity of the female completely lacks importance).

Rhaenyra´s children is also a non-point. The Green did what they did out of the lust for power and the will to replace Rhaenyra with Aegon. They would have couped regardless of her cheating or not (and its not really cheating if your husband approves, btw). Nor does it has anything to do with the value of virginity. If they wanted to take that stance (assuming Rhaenyra got pregnant her first time), then they should have made it clear that they would support Aegon III in his possible future war against the Strong bastards.

And the Blackfyre is not really about virginity again, but rather not bringing bastards into life. However, since Aegon is not the one taking moon tea, you could sort of see it as question of chastity - but few in this setting seems to care abot the male infidelity. Strange, considering that in a society with great morning after pills male non-virgins cant control their offspring the same way a female non-virgin can. But Daemon wasn´t a product when Aegon IV was still a virgin, since it was taken by Falena Stokeworth and not Daena, so again it has nothing to do with virginity.

[Protagoras]

Come to think of it, are there any characters in the book who actually speak about the importance of virginity apart from Cersei (who is clearly not a role-model when it comes to this) and Lancel (who has gotten a serious disease - religion - in him at that point)?

Edit: Oh - Lysa too, not the brightest bulb nor a great role-model.