Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HaeSuse

  1. Here's the funny part. The folks defending Jon, here (whom, I will reiterate for the 1000th time, I adore), say that keeping Mance alive was the right thing to do.


    So... was it the wrong thing to do, to allow Mel to burn Mance? Because that was what Jon did originally. Completely support the burning alive of Mance Rayder. Not even beheading him. Not executing him. Not "swinging the sword because he gave the sentence". But, allowing a foreigner to burn him alive. Sure, it turned out to be Rattleshirt. Maybe you're all claiming he knew all along in his golden heart of hearts that it wasn't Mance! Or maybe it's yet another long winded, bending over backwards to pat your own back, dodging of the issue. But, Jon has both sentenced Mance to death, and allowed him to live, to serve his non-NW realm concerns. If you approve of one, you can't approve of the other. If you think letting him live to go do side-quests to level up in the realm is the right thing, then letting a witch burn him alive is the wrong thing. And vice versa. I think both were inherently wrong. But allowing him to live was the one that gave his brothers in the NW just cause to remove him from office. If you're gonna sentence him to death, swing the sword, Jon.  And, if you're gonna let him live, then resign as LC of the NW, and go about your life as a deserter. 

  2. 1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

    Then why did you start bickering about it in the first place? So, your argument does not work out, and now it's "bickering over a moot point, regardless"?

    Well, the other "offenses" have been addressed, and were not what you were going on about when you asked whether "Realms of Men" includes Slaver's Bay or not. If you think that is not the issue, at least have the grace to bow out and say, "okay, wildlings and slaver's Bay" do fall under "Realms of Men", instead of suddenly calling it irrelevant.

    You miss the point. I have agreed, and did from the start about that point. It is logically valid to say that.... 1) realms of men should include wildlings, when actually presented with the "real" threat of the Others. 2) During other times, when the "freefolk" are actively campaigning to do the "realms of men" harm by grouping up with a "king beyond the wall", it is just as reasonable to consider them "enemies". 3) It makes no sense to allow "men" and "women" into a realm bound under the law of a throne defined by serfism and feudalism, when those "men" and "women" refuse to do the "rightful king" leal service. 4) tradition plays a huge part in what the LC is expected to do 5) tradition, beyond the recollection of any living human being, says "wildlings are an enemy" 5) Mance was aiming to do the "realms of men" harm, and believed he could bring the wall down, and intended to posssibly do so, with the horn.


    But the key point in all of those, is point 2. Let us presume that Jeor Mormont allowed wildlings to pass. Would he have been campaigned against by the brothers? Uh, yup. No doubt. Would he have been assassinated by his brothers? Who knows, but highly likely. Would the Iron Throne have kicked him out of there, alive or dead? You know they would have. It might not even have been the IT. Maybe Ned Stark would've, when 50k wildlings (who had been raping and pillaging his cities as long as he'd been alive) showed up. 


    Would you be saying, in that case, "Nope. Jeor did the right thing, allowing Mance and his men through the wall?"

    Or would you be saying "wildlings are enemies?" 

    Laugh and mock me all you want, you've made a habit of it, now. That's fine. Take the white side, or the black side. You've done that consistently, as well. This one is as gray as any of them. And no matter whether it's light gray, or dark gray, he still refused to take Mance's head, and sent Mance to save his "sister", both of which are the breaking of oaths. 

  3. 1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

    I never said that the previous 997 Lord Commander's considered the Wildlings friends, though I find it highly unlikely that the first couple of LC's though that way. In the time between the Long Night and the present events in the series both the NW, the Seven Kingdoms and the Wildlings had all forgotten the true purpose of the wall and they all came to believe that it was there for to defend against wildlings. They were wrong though, because the wall was originally built to protect all men against the Others.

    It might have been funded and built by the Westerosi but that's only because that's where the Long Night took place. Even if you consider the phrase 'realms of men' to only mean the Westerosi, the Wildlings are still part of the realms of men.

    As to your point about there being no evidence that the Wall wasn't meant to protect Essos as well; there is also no evidence to say it wasn't, nor is there any evidence to say that there have been 998 Lord Commanders, or that the Stark's, Martell's, Lannister's etc have ruled for 8000 years. In this series, history is deliberately incomplete and inaccurate. What can't be disputed is that the Nights Watch vow says they are to 'guard the realms of men'. Not 'guard the realms of men, but only those who swear fealty to one king or another'.


    Again, we're arguing a point we agree about. For the 10th time this thread: I agree the wall wasn't intended to keep wildings out. I agree the wall was intended to stop the Others. I'm just saying that precedent goes a long way. And all precedent GRRM cared to share with us, pointed toward a neverending history of wildlings being a threat to the realms of man. Kings beyond the wall never said "Let us be the 8th kingdom!". They said "WE WILL NOT BEND THE KNEE, WE WILL CONQUER BY FORCE". Right? I mean, can you at least agree to that? And now there's another king beyond the wall doing the same thing. And he might even have a frikkin magical horn that will reduce the wall to rubble. 


    And he's.... wait.... not the enemy?

    I'm not saying he's more of an enemy than frozen zombie magic kings of cold, and all that jazz. But.... come on.... really?

  4. 1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

    1. Lord Commanders are allowed to host guests, especially those that save them. Giving Stannis advice is stretching his oath about and warning him about Karstark is a violation of the oath. Morally right, but still a violation. Responding to a threat made by Ramsay isn't a violation unless there is another way out. Which there isn't. Jon didn't send Mance to Winterfell. He allowed Mel to send him to Long Lake to intercept the fleeing girl betrothed to Ramsay (he thought) but Mance went to Winterfell on his own initiative.

    2. Not really. She didn't burn any septs or godswoods or any of the brothers did she.

    3. Yeah, that's true.

    4. Yes, letting them through was right both morally and as LC. Even if it was against his oath, I would support it anyway, as would any smart or any way reasonable people.

    5. No. The Stark's and their bannermen have fought alongside the NW before, without taking the black. In the coming novels a lot of people not in the NW will fight alongside them. So that shouldn't be an issue. What's wrong with women fighting? It's perfectly acceptable in wildling culture and while there is a stigma attached to it, it's not illegal or unheard of south of the wall.

    1) Not just giving Stannis advice, but doing so while at the same time sending the Lannister lackeys a note saying "we aren't collaborating with the Stannis host!". Not just meddling in the affairs of the realm, but doing so on one side, while trying to play the other side! Sweet holy Drowned God, how much more clear can it be? "Go out into the mountains, the clansmen will rally to you!" ??? 

    2) No, she just glamoured 2 key freefolk, burned the one who didn't need to burn, saved the other, and was attempting to use Kingsmen, Queensmen, NW, and Freefolk to accomplish her meddling BS goals, as usual. Is deceiving the LC of the NW, deliberately and completely lying to him, burning a man alive (who wasn't sentenced to death), and saving a man (who was sentenced to death) nothing to  you? What about influencing and manipulating Jon into the whole Abel/Spearwives/Arya plot?

    3) Yeah it is. And how many of these offenses do you need in order to agree with the OP title?

    4) No! I mean, if every lord in the 7 kingdoms says "NO"! and you only exists at the pleasure of the 7 kingdoms, then how/why can you justify this? Morally, I agree. But as LC? How? Are you saying the NW draws its power and autonomy from somewhere other than the Iron Throne? If the 7 kingdoms stopped sending men and money, it would cease to exist... IT would be like saying.... If President Trump ordered an absolute end to immigration, and got it approved by congress, and the Supreme Court... Then the Marines helping needy/starving/homeless/wartorn/refugee people immigrate.... Saying "that's justifiable by law!" No, it would not be! I'd still support it MORALLY, but there is no LEGAL defense of it. Same here.

    5) The issue with women fighting isn't an issue with women fighting. I support a system where women can be soldiers, in our modern world. If they want a gun, and prove they can use, give it to them. The issue is putting women around men sworn to celibacy in combat situations (or at all).

  5. 47 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

    Actually the Wall is built to prevent the Others from gaining a large domain to engulf the whole world into a Long NIght. The Long Night is not just a local phenomenon that only operates in Westeros, but all of Planetos. Why else does every culture from Yi Ti to the North have stories about this and that hero saving the world otherwise?

    Even if so... It does not change the fact that just short of 1000 Lord Commanders have considered Wildlings a threat. Why call them wildlings if not? Why have "kings beyond the wall" build armies to forcefully invade the 7 kingdoms? Be it right or wrong (and look, I've admitted in this very thread that I agree that the wall was built to keep Others out, not wildlings), it is absolutely going against what the NW has done for thousands of years. There is no arguing that point. And, to boot, the other offenses. Not taking Mance's head. Letting Mance loose south of the wall, to do non-NW work. There were more than enough oaths broken, and rules unfollowed, to where, even if Jon is 100% right in his approach to the freefolk, he still abused/misused his powers as LC of the NW. So, bickering over this one thing becomes a moot point, regardless.

  6. 36 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

    A skinchanged animal can make it perfectly clear that it resents being occupied, and could maybe even be able to resist an untrained warg like Arya, much as Thistle did Orell. Nymeria never reacts this way to Arya. The direwolves have a deep emotional connection to their owners, so Nymeria would realise that Arya was only forcing her to leave very reluctantly. Then you have the ambush of the Bolton men and pulling of Cat from the river which would seem odd favours for a girl you hate.

    As for Nymeria being too wild to live with humans other than Arya, I am skeptical. The bigger, pretty unsurmountable problem is with the grey cousins.

    Am I missing something? Has Arya ever "warged" as Nym? She has the dreams, sure. But actual warging? If Nymeria DID realize that, why didn't she make her presence known to Arya? A thousand times over she had the chance, before Arya left for Bravos. Why not? 

  7. 12 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

    Err, yes, why not? When/where in the books is it stated that "the realms of Men" means "the men living in the Seven Kingsdom"?

    It's not. You are right. But there is a clear understanding (be it right or wrong) from several thousand years of black brothers, that it meant the realms south of the wall. There is even textual evidence to support that it was built for just that purpose. They clearly did not have Slaver's Bay in mind, when they built the wall. 


    Let's say you're right. It means all (wo)men. Generic. Why build a wall? And if it was meant only to defend against the undead menace north of the wall, then why didn't all previous Lord Commanders allow any/all wildlings to pass south? Wouldn't wildlings have always been welcome? Wouldn't there have been a precedent for that, somewhere, somehow? And if it had been meant to save Essos as well as Westeros, wouldn't there be some lineage, some evidence, some precedent, some proof of that, as well? 


    Look, I agree. The white walkers and their ilk are the true menace. And I agree, wildlings are just (wo)men. However, the wall, the Night's Watch, and everything that goes with them, were built by, and funded by, and manned by, men from the 7 kingdoms. I haven't heard of any Myrish black brothers. And maybe a wildling or two has taken the black in the past, but if so, it's few and far between. And, the fact that, what is it, 5 "kings beyond the wall" have made it their goal to take the North (as in the realm of the Starks) by force, upending and unsettling the northmen who live(d) there, I believe makes it perfectly justifiable for the last 997 Lord Commanders to consider wildlings, in general, their foes, not friends. 

    It makes perfect sense. When the wights are active, wildlings and men of the "realm" band together to fight a common cause. An enemy of my enemy is my friend, as it were. But when that threat is dormant, an enemy is just an enemy. And a giant group of people (people though they are) who proclaim "I WILL NOT BEND MY KNEE" have no place in a medieval feudal society, and therefore belong north of the wall. I have no doubt that if some wildlings had escaped over the wall, in the millennia between the previous era of white walker activity and this current one, and had come to the current Stark in Winterfell, saying "I'll bend the knee, I just want a home and some land to farm", that Lord would've said "by all means, go grow me some potatoes, friend". 



  8. 1 hour ago, Rickon Stark The Aulë said:

    No, that makes absolutely no sense. There is no possible way that ever happened. 


    Well put! Informative, detailed, and fact laden rebuttal!




    I think it makes a lot of sense, and I thought the same thing myself. The amount of evidence we have for forced marriages (or unforced) during times of conflict, to bring realms and houses together, is enormous. It happened in real life, during the middle ages, as well, and we know GRRM loosely based the Stark/Lannister conflict on the York/Lancaster War of the Roses. It makes a ton of sense for some ancient war/rebellion to have gone awry, and for a Stark to marry off a distant cousin to some Greyjoy or another, thereby ending the conflict, and possibly purchasing a few centuries of peace, through the brokered marriage. The location makes sense too.


  9. 55 minutes ago, Red Man Racey said:

    It says the Realms of Men, not the realms of the Seven Kingdoms. Or is no one anywhere else in the world a human being? And based on his reaction to Jon's calling him out, I would argue that Bowen Marsh agrees that the Free Folk are in fact part of the figurative group "Realms of Men." That's why he gets red in the face -- he's embarrassed because he knows that Jon is correct and he can't dispute it but he's still unwilling to give up his bigotry.

    Oh, so in your definition, he's also sworn to protect New Ghis, Lys, Mereen? That's a good stretch of purple prose interpretation right there. 

  10. I like Jon. He's a good dude. Stuck in between a hundred loyalties, oaths, honors, families, and vows. What's a man to do?


    Regardless of the love/hate thing going on here, and in the previous thread, I believe that the brothers who wanted him gone, had every reason to want him gone. While Jon's actions may have been the right things for him to do, they were not the right things for the 998th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch to do. I don't condone his murder. I don't appreciate or like his killers and their conspirators. I love Jon. I want him to do well, and end up on top at the end of these novels. But, the case against him as the LC is pretty strong.


    1. Taking part in the realm's concerns (20 times over): from fArya, to Stannis, to the Boltons
    2. Allowing a Red Witch to do her Red things, in her Red manners, which is an affront to all of the sworn brothers of the Night's Watch.
    3. Not killing Mance, after taking Janos's head (which I applaud, by the way. Stupid frog man Lannister lickspittle).
    4. Letting the Wildlings through. Which morally was the right thing to do. But, as LCotNW? 
    5. Arming wildlings (Even women) and allowing them to fight with the Brothers (a different thing entirely if they take the black).

  11. 4 hours ago, Tianzi said:

    I judge him mostly by his deeds.

    And I've said that he is gray. And that overall I like him.

    But I've also said that I think his habit of choosing to say something sexual related when he wants to insult women - whether or not the act of insult itself is justified - reflects badly on him.

    And yes, if you know that the woman in question will be offended and put off, it's clearly a sexual harassment and that's your damn intent in this case.

    Then we can say that what Tysha broke Tywin restored, because following that incident Tyrion still has a mindset of a nobleman (although more empathetic than most in some aspects).

    If anyone claims he's black or white, then they missed the boat. He's clearly gray as gray can be. I agree. To your second point I'd say, he equally makes sexual jokes to/about men. It's not sexism, then, just crassness. Right? And is being crass so bad, when placed in the moral cosmic scales? Nah. I tend to actually like it. Probably because I myself am crass. I see that. I'm not blind to it. 


    And, in your eyes, is it sexual harassment when he makes equally crude jokes about men? Or is it only so when it's the opposite sex? What if he was gay? Would it only be sexual harassment then, if it was towards men? This also is as gray as gray comes. 


    If I make a joke about your religion, is is religious harassment? About your worldview is it worldview harassment?


    Quoting the great Salman Rushdie: “Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people."


    Same goes here. If such crude jokes offend you, and someone says them, don't be around them. Easy as pie. And in places where you CAN'T avoid them (like work) there are almost always protections in place. And when being improperly imprisoned for something you didn't do, I think we can cut someone some slack for taking an "offensive" tact toward their captor/abuser/torturer/accuser. 

  12. 5 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    I find the arguments far more interesting than the poster's background, as that starts to lean to Ad Hominem fallacies, where people hope to dismiss someone's arguments because of who they are than the argument by its own merrits or faults.


    I agree, wholeheartedly! However, let's say that it gets down to "Oh. Em. Gee. So-and-so made a rude comment to such-and-such!" and some people find that very thing repulsive, utterly repugnant, and despicable. And some people say "Wut? How is that bad?"

    Then, I find it interesting the demographics and background of the people who side one way, or side the other. No different than politics. Some people think it's impossible to understand why someone would want to pay more taxes, in order to give more people health care. Some other people think it's morally repugnant to NOT want to do so. Is there a moral prerogative there? I think there is, personally. But guess what, the people on the other side of the fence do, too. No one on either side of that battle thinks "I'm a terrible person for believing what I believe". If anything, they think that about the OTHER side.

    But it's still interesting to note specific demographic features of either side of that argument. Why would it not be? And, if it wasn't interesting, then the 7 trillion articles, tweets, podcasts, news reels, etc wouldn't exist.

    Is it the be all end all to say... "the education level of side A is X, and the education of level of side B is Y"? Nope. But is it interesting? You betcha!

  13. 17 hours ago, Sigella said:

    1 Rape, murder and torture happen as well - and its still not ok. She did not want to do it and he still made her, it doesn't get moral any way you turn it, or which circumstances you apply it to.

    2 Being disinherited doesn't mean as much when you're on good terms with the other heir. Same as 1.

    3 I'm assuming her family treated her better, and a great deal of small-folk too.

    4 Comparing to others doesn't matter.

    5 Point is he was actively shaming her. Not ok.

    6 4


    1) I never said it was moral. Honestly, if you look at 90% of the actions in the books, they aren't MORAL. So what? I said judge him versus his peers. And if you do, he looks like a gallant white knight.

    2) Jamie has sworn off his inheritance time and time again. Cersei is the heir, once Tywin disavows Tyrion's rights. And he's on great terms with his sweet sister, eh?

    3) Family, sure. Small-folk, maybe? You'd have to ask Penny.

    4) Comparing to others is what I'm doing. It matters. It always matters. If you take any of the characters, and compare them to modern times, they look archaic, immoral, and awful. Everything has to be looked at through the lenses of a medieval, lords, ladies and serfs setting. Elsewise, what are you even doing? Even the most honorable, noble, of the books, looks silly, through a modern, educated, intelligent person's eyes. Ned is OH SO NOBLE, for killing Lady! (I love Ned, FYI. This is just some devil's advocacy). Dany is SO incredibly sweet and kind for saving MMD! No. They did much better than their forebears, and did their best to better the world, where they could. It's all relative. You must compare. 

    5) And she was actively falsely imprisoning him on the word of her self professed lunatic of a sister. Not even that, but a raven's word of her lunatic sister. And she even had internal doubts that he did it. But... still... marched him to his almost certain death. That GRRM wrote a nice little Deus Ex Machina in to save the Imp, doesn't relieve Cat of her guilt in her bullshit deeds. And that's 1000 times worse than making a jape such as that. He didn't even say anything truly nasty, as he could've. "I'm willing if she's willing". I can't believe that's even a topic of discussion here. No worries.

    6) Yeah, I get it. It's horrible to compare versus others. Yup. Lunacy.

  14. 17 hours ago, Tianzi said:

    True, but

    1. He was thirteen.

    2. Gotta be cynical here - he had to notice he wouldn't be madly desired by women, and he points out that Tysha was the girl  who loved him even though he didn't think it's possible.

    Did it? Again, Shae, he treated her like he owned her. And about the caste system - Penny has to instruct him how to act to survive around 'tall people' because Tywin used to call them 'smallfolk' and that's the world Tyrion lived in, being a noble through and through (though having humanity towards lower social castes, which isn't the case with all nobles).

    Been and heard worse, so what? Still would consider someone who says those kinds of things at least a bit of douchebag and I'm not any kind of an exception here.

    Catelyn Stark on the other hand probably didn't go to too many bars and is a lady, so yeah, it's even more of a douchebaggery. (not that I'm particularly hung up on that Tyrion's comment, it's one of the less offensive ones, but it fits the pattern of his habit of verbal sexual harassment).


    When I say his very first romantic endeavor, I mean Tysha, and yes, it clearly broke the caste system. She was, by all accounts, an absolute commoner. The smallest of smallfolk.


    And I just don't see talk like that as "harassment". In a workplace? I get it. I would never. Not in a million years. But out'n'about? When the topic is already being bandied about by everyone around you? Meh. There are plenty of examples even in the books, of women, highborn, who did not get offended by such talk. Some did get offended by such talk. Was it crude and rude? Yes, you'll get no argument from me there. Did he know Cat would be offended and put off by it? He sure did. That's part of his driving reason in saying it. Was he improperly imprisoned by her, being captured at swordpoint for something he didn't do? Ayup. I cut him some slack there, for sure. And anyway, words are wind. Judge him on his deeds. Of which, he certainly is gray, not white or black. I've said that, too.

  15. 50 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

    I'll check 4 quotes when back home

    yes,so. One example is the rule now. Perhaps check up on the more general statistics than use one example to then wrongly believe it's the rule

    Not claiming it's the rule. Claiming it's beyond out of the question, nor is it truly even frowned upon. And I'm asking for proof of your claim. I give you my proof from the books:


    • Exhibit A: The entire Lannister family thinks it's fine. Or, at least, Tywin does, and then everyone follows him, in fear of his wroth. Not that they are scions of ethics and morality. 
    • Exhibit B: Dany is pregnant with The Stallion Who Mounts The World at 14 years old. Again, not that the Dothraki are scions of Westerosi versions of ethics or morals either. But each example adds to the evidence, methinks.
    • Exhibit C: Chapter 28 of aSoS. During the wedding of Tyrion and Sansa, Joffrey wants a bedding. No one spoke up. We didn't exactly see the responses of the crowd, but no vocal gasps, or horrified responses were noted. Which GRRM would've made a point of showing us, I think, if they had occurred.

    That's all I've got right now. A Search of Ice and Fire isn't loading properly for me now, and the books aren't at hand.

  16. 34 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

    Anyone who's in his 30s has experienced failure, heartbreak, betrayal, deep loss, shame, helplessness, etc..

    we have a saying: every house carries a cross. No, my life certainly was never a straight arrow. 

    This has little to do with inexperience, but with integrity, self-inspection or reflection. I find those traits important in an adult. Because you need them to learn from mistakes. Also I just don't easily wish ill on people, nowhere near as tyrion does. 

    I don't consider him a monster, but his resentful thoughts either disgust me or annoy me. He's not my fav POV at all. 

    Sure, as I said, I know no one is free of trouble and pain. And I meant it as a broad question. Your response is good, and contributes. Thank you for it. But as you said to me one post above, a single example does not a statistic make. 

  17. I wonder.... How many of the Tyrion detractors have gone through such trials and tribulations themselves. What is the personal story arc of each Tyrion hater, and each Tyrion lover, and each Tyrion "understander" (neither loving nor hating, but getting him, nonetheless). 


    I'm a lover. He's my favorite, and was from the get go. And I've had a helluva life. Countless trials and tribulations, from as humbling and devastating as the ones Job experienced in the Bible, to as commonplace and understandable as the ones everyone experiences. More near-death experiences than I can remember, without really sitting down and going through them all, giving 100% effort over several hours of dedicated soul wracking. Been behind bars several times. Fathered multiple children. Adopted another. Married. Separated. Divorced. More drunken moronic experiences than I care to recount. Alcoholism. Dealing with being an atheist in a family of devout Christians (all atheists are bastards in their Christian parents' eyes). Deaths everywhere. Suicides galore. Lost two people who I would've called best-friend at the time, to drug overdose and suicide. Estranged siblings. Siblings in prison for multiple years. Cancer in multiple immediate family members. Financial devastation, financial success. A rollercoaster of a life. I've loved it. But, I just wonder. Are most of Tyrion's lovers, folks who, like me, have experienced a lot of ups and downs and arounds? Are most of his haters people who've had a more arrow straight path from point A to point B? (I know that no life is devoid of trials and tribulations. I also know that some are far more so than others).


    Also, are his haters more religious? Are his lovers less religious? 

    These things intrigue me.


    Here's to you, Giant of Lannister. May your roads be paved and clean, may your trials and tribulations make you grow (not break you down), may your women truly appreciate you, may your wine be strong and red, and may someone, someday, bear you beautiful children you can raise and love! 



  18. 13 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

    Actually that is a false assertion. Most men would wait until their wife is older. The books mention how girls as young as Sansa may end up being married to an older man, but that the consummation of it is actually postponed until she's older... and for very good reasons. The risk of childbirth mortality is enormous with a girl that young, because she's not yet fully developed physically - hips not yet wide enough. Plenty of marriages in real history at the age of 13-14 within the highest ranks of the nobility, but the first child is often not reported to being born until the girl is about 17, and thus the actual consummation was postponed until around 16-17 years old.

    So, no, both historcally and according to the books MOST husbands would wait several years before actually bedding Sansa. It's just Tywin who wants to force the consummation. That's because Tywin doesn't care whether Sansa lives or dies in childbirth. In fact, he likely prefers Sansa to die soon. All he needs is Tyrion with a trueborn child from a Stark.

    No, it doesn't. It does say what you're saying, but it's in reference to girls who haven't flowered yet. Give us quotes. And anyway, Tywin was the one demanding he put a son on her. Not Tyrion. Tyrion objected on multiple occasions. 


    Henry VII's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort was 14 when she gave birth to him. 

  19. 14 hours ago, Tianzi said:

    Not really, at least if the woman in question isn't close to you, obviously interested in you or, well, is someone's wife.

    Chastity-obsessed Westeros? Talking this way to a highborn lady? Please.

    Both Tyrion and Dany are assholes more often than it's necessary and their 'compassionate' acts sometimes boil down to 'I want to feel good about myself and have people smile at me.'

    Have you been to bars? It's been a few years for me, since I got married and made 4 little whelps. But I spent quite a lot of time in them, before that. This would have been considered one of the least offensive or off-putting things said in them. Married or not. And even in the absolute worst light you can shine on it, it's a jape.

  20. 14 hours ago, Tianzi said:

    a) whores are the group of people who treat him the best, so it's not like it's really born from his respect to women. Actually a lot of his kindness to women is quite mercenary too, hoping to win their favours, opening their legs and a smile.


    This only became his manner after the event with Tysha. Remember, he married a common girl. That's not "women are wives", and not "people belong in the social caste". His very first romantic endeavor broke both the whore systems and the caste systems, in one fell swoop. And it is the one thing he thinks of the most, now. Tyrion was broken by his father and brother, and their "sharp lesson". He has a chance to put the pieces back together. 

  21. 5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    You all are making a lot of great points about Olenna and Selyse. In reference to the latter, however, what does LF expect Selyse personally to do that will make her more of a threat? Stannis is still the one calling all the shots, so I'm not sure how Selyse could be seen as a contender on her own.

    Which is why I added Mel. And to be fair, Mel/Selyse are interchangeable as far as this argument goes. For the both represent the wroth of Stannis's army and claim to the throne.