Why I don't hate Theon Greyjoy

[Lee-Sensei]

There is nothing I see to concede to. I stand firm that nothing in Theon's chapters prove Kyra was 100% happy being his bed mate. There is NO WAY she would have able to say no & have Theon simply leave her alone & find someone else. I also stand firm that that Theon's own POV clearly shows that he did rape her.

I'm not even going to touch the miller boy's night because that one is debatable and I can see how you'd see it that way. Whether you consider it rape or indecent assault... either way it was bad.

But let's look at the facts.

1. Theon is a tall, dark and handsome noble man.

2. He had a relationship with her for at least a year.

3. She got to go to Winterfell and lived in Ned Starks castle.

4. She shows signs that she was happy.

5. She doesn't show any signs that she was unhappy with the situation.

6. You can't provide 1 single quote that suggests that she was forced to stay there.

7. Concession accepted.

[ghosts in winterfell]

Kyra was a girl that enjoyed fucking Theon.

One day Theon, in his stupidity, raped Kyra.

--

Nothing more to it. How is this even an argument?

Idk I thought this was settled back in the first few pages of the thread. Sharya Stark seems to have elected themselves to be Kyra's champion which is kind of odd since they didn't agree when I said his raping her was one of Theon's low points.

[Winterfell Resident]

Theon GreyJoy should have never went back to his father.

His father Baylon Greyjoy is "Old School". He was stuck in his old ways and would never change.

If Theon Greyjoy went back to Pyke after Baylon GreyJoy died, MAYBE he would not have been so easily co-erced into betraying the Starks.

Because I feel as if Theon Greyjoy, although was brought up with the Starks at the age of 8 or 9, he still needed more time under the Starks in order to remove any notion of taking on his father's ways of living.

I am beginning to think that this is one of the reasons Ned Stark agreed to take on Theon as a ward. I believe that Ned's intention was that by taking Theon at an early age that he could probably BREAK that cycle of Baylon Greyjoy's lifestyle.

I believe Ned Stark's plan was working, but, because of what took place in Kings Landing, Theon Greyjoy went to see his father too soon. That's why he betrayed the Starks.

Not because he felt deep down that he hated the Starks. NO. But, because he was not mentally and emotionally ready to stand up to his father.

He just was not ready to go back.

It really wasn't his fault.

[Broken Fox]

I agreed with everything you said until

It really wasn't his fault.

:BS:

[Lee-Sensei]

Theon GreyJoy should have never went back to his father.

His father Baylon Greyjoy is "Old School". He was stuck in his old ways and would never change.

If Theon Greyjoy went back to Pyke after Baylon GreyJoy died, MAYBE he would not have been so easily co-erced into betraying the Starks.

Because I feel as if Theon Greyjoy, although was brought up with the Starks at the age of 8 or 9, he still needed more time under the Starks in order to remove any notion of taking on his father's ways of living.

I am beginning to think that this is one of the reasons Ned Stark agreed to take on Theon as a ward. I believe that Ned's intention was that by taking Theon at an early age that he could probably BREAK that cycle of Baylon Greyjoy's lifestyle.

I believe Ned Stark's plan was working, but, because of what took place in Kings Landing, Theon Greyjoy went to see his father too soon. That's why he betrayed the Starks.

Not because he felt deep down that he hated the Starks. NO. But, because he was not mentally and emotionally ready to stand up to his father.

He just was not ready to go back.

It really wasn't his fault.

From descriptions of Theon as a kid it sounds like he got a lot worse while he was at Winterfell and he didn't betray the Starks. He betrayed Robb. He owed the rest of them nothing.

[Winterfell Resident]

After reading my post, I believe I went a little bit too far with "It really wasn't his fault"

So I made the necessary fixes.

[johnnysd]

I'm sorry, do you have some point to make? What's not to enjoy in reading about the inner turmoil of an incredibly complex character, especially one that is coming to terms with all of the things he's done wrong?

Do you harbor such self-righteous indignation for every single character that's less than saintly? Do you hold every character to the same high, rigid standards that you apply to Theon, or does their moral ambiguity get a pass because you like them?

Wow. Serious humor air freshener needed Batman. It was just a joke. You are like Theon's biggest fan person, so stating that is just so redundant. But. Nothing wrong with that. I may not agree with you on whether or not he is evil, his complexity or interest level of his chapters but that is what makes GRRM so strong. He writes so well as the character he is writing that you truly get an insight into that character from the standpoint of someone that likes that character, mainly the character himself. Doing this means impacts people differently depending on how much you identify with the characters motivations, conflicts and makeups. The books truly have someone for everyone and that is why they are universal. So while you Theon complex, redeemable and some of the best writing of the books, I see something else entirely and Theon's chapters are amongst, if not the least favorite of mine in the books. For me, if GRRM killed everyone off and only wrote about Arya I will probably like the books almost as much as I do now.You may hate Arya chapters

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

I don't really know which is worse; someone who doesn't understand the obvious lack of agency Kyra had dispite providing page after page of understand for Theon's circumstances,

OR

someone who understands perfectly well what I am saying but chooses to dismiss the lack of agency Kyra had because "SHE WAS JUST A TAVERN WENCH"!

Tell me, Would she have merited your sence of justice or compassion if she had been Highborn?

I knew you were gonna assume I was calling her "just a tavern wench" as in she was of little worth

What I meant by "just a tavern wench," was she was not a castellan, steward, soldier, tax collector, or basically any member of Winterfell's court that would really stand to lose anything with the Ironborn takeover. She probably cared little about who was the official lord of Winterfell. As far as we know, she had no close ties to the Starks at all, no family that was a member of Winterfell's court, etc. Her number one remains the same regardless of who's in power.

Go read the last line of what I wrote again and tell me this isn't what I was trying to say.

[Livus]

Kyra was a girl that enjoyed fucking Theon.

One day Theon, in his stupidity, raped Kyra.

--

Nothing more to it. How is this even an argument?

Agreed. This.

I find it rather astonishing that there appear to be posters here who think that once someone consents to come to your bed or begin to have sex with you, then it's somehow okay to proceed to do whatever you like to them, whether they want you to or not.

Moving beyond the question of rape/consent though, I think the point of that scene is more that Theon doesn't care whether it is or not. He's selfishly taking out his own emotional issues on someone else without any self-restraint. And this for me is what characterises him in general - vain self-absorption coupled with weakness of will.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

That's like asking me quote were ANY other WF resident is forced to comply with Theon's demands while he and his IB are in charge. It is implicit In the very nature of the situation. If you don't understand that, I recommend rereading those chapters.

And btw- if you believe that person being held captive by a man who has already slaughtered many non-combatants actually has the choice of free will, then you would have to agree that Theon himself has been complicit in his own torture at the hands of Ramsey since he didn't made an attempt to escape. I'm not willing to put that much responsibility on victims.

Theon did try to escape from Ramsay, with Kyra actually. You could even say he stuck with her, when he could have shoved her away and run to save himself.

[Lee-Sensei]

Agreed. This.

I find it rather astonishing that there appear to be posters here who think that once someone consents to come to your bed or begin to have sex with you, then it's somehow okay to proceed to do whatever you like to them, whether they want you to or not.

Who. Said. That.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The term rape is being thrown around too loosely. There are three components to rape: there needs to be penetration by a penis, the penetration has to be unwanted by the victim, and the perpetrator must have been aware that there was a real risk that there was no consent.

Penetration obviously occurred, but in terms of Kyra being upset, was she upset at the penetration, or at the associated biting, etc. I'd venture the latter - she was clearly quite happy shagging Theon, but was distressed at the sudden biting. Which makes it indecent assault, not rape (unless she told him to stop the sex, but we have no evidence of that). As for Theon's own mindset, was he aware that she might not have been consenting? I think you'd have a hard time proving that beyond reasonable doubt, especially given that Theon would have probably gone with someone else if she'd refused him.

In other words, the evidence points to indecent assault, not rape. Still awful, of course.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

Who. Said. That.

I would also like to know, because I won't suffer being called a rape apologist, nor will I have it implied.

[ghosts in winterfell]

Omg enough. Yes, Theon raped Kyra. Yes, it probably started off consensually. She didn't expect him to get so violent and likely told him to stop hurting her, but he ignored her and continued.

I don't think penetration is an inherent requirement, any unwanted/forced sexual contact would be considered rape.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Legally, penetration *is* required (not for sexual assault though).

[ghosts in winterfell]

Whatever, he still raped her. As for his mindset & awareness, she probably let him know that she wasnt into it and he probably didn't care about her withdrawing her consent because in that moment he needed someone to take his anger out on.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Again, you have to differentiate between objection to penetration (rape) and objection to the biting (indecent assault). She could have just as easily yelled "stop hurting me!" which in this context would likely imply the latter.

I'm not suggesting indecent assault isn't awful, just that you have to be careful about using the term rape.

[Broken Fox]

Ah horseshit. That was rape.

[Livus]

The term rape is being thrown around too loosely. There are three components to rape: there needs to be penetration by a penis, the penetration has to be unwanted by the victim, and the perpetrator must have been aware that there was a real risk that there was no consent.

The legal definition of what constitutes rape varies by country.

However, since I believe you're my compatriot, Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, I should point out that the above definition doesn't quite meet the definition in New Zealand. In order for it not to be rape, the penetrator must have reasonable grounds to believe that the penetratee consents. In other words, the usual legal standard about what is considered "reasonable" applies.

This is an important distinction - if one is not aware that there's no consent this has to be a reasonable lack of awareness, not for example someone who is drunk and therefore has impaired judgment and rapes another drunk. Same applies to unlawful sexual connection (i.e without penetration).

As for unlawful connection versus rape, it's a fairly safe bet - and seems reasonable to me - that consent for penetration is likely withdrawn at the point where any serious physical assault commences in conjunction with it. Though I'd hate to see it go through the local courts on something like biting.

Rhaegar I Targaryen, I'm certainly not trying to imply that anyone in this thread is a rape apologist - I'm simply highly surprised by the different understandings of what constitutes rape. Though, on second thoughts I probably shouldn't be, because as I've said, it varies considerably. I seem to recall, for instance, that there are still some controversies around spousal rape definitions in some parts of the United States.

The reason I get the impression that some posters' definitions seem to rule out rape on grounds of prior consent or prior relationship, is because of the way arguments between several posters and Sharya Stark seemed to focus on establishing those two things. This is a long thread for a newbie like me to wade through but in the interests of politeness, here are some examples I thought imply this focus:

Nobody on this thread is certainly advocating his actions, he committed indecent assault upon Kyra in the process of having sex with her. It isn't rape, he even forbade it upon taking Winterfell. Certainly he took out his frustrations in a harmful manner upon her. There's a very thin line here obviously, and as ghosts I think stated early on in this thread isn't his finest moment. But calling it rape isn't accurate, it started consensually, as it would have throughout his stay in Winterfell, but this particular session caused her a lot of strife. Don't think of me as justifying his actions, it is bad, but I stil wouldn't call it rape

It was after killing the miller boys IIRC. He called her in for sex. He was angry and lost in thought and was violent with her. I'm iffy on calling it rape as she was willing to have sex with him, but it was IMO indecent assault. Of course that's still very bad, but I don't think I'd call it rape.

I'm not even going to touch the miller boy's nigh because that one is debatable and I can see how you'd see it that way. Whether you consider it rape or indecent assault... either way it was bad.

But let's look at the facts.

1. Theon is a tall, dark and handsome noble man.

2. He had a relationship with her for at least a year.

3. She got to go to Winterfell and lived in Ned Starks castle.

Finally, I find this post intriguing because it hints at the different definitions of rape in different cultures... are you advocating cultural relativism? I don't know:

But this is a fictional world with fictional laws and fictional customs that differ from our own. If some of you choose to look at it differently than I do, that is your right and I shouldn't judge you for it. But don't you call me an apologist for sexual assault. I would never defend any man in today's day and age who did what Theon did to Kyra in real life, but I choose to view it diifferently in the books. Different era, different customs. Theon was a lord, Kyra was a tavern wench-- the dynamics were totally different.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The legal definition of what constitutes rape varies by country.

However, since I believe you're my compatriot, Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, I should point out that the above definition doesn't quite meet the definition in New Zealand. In order for it not to be rape, the penetrator must have reasonable grounds to believe that the penetratee consents. In other words, the usual legal standard about what is considered "reasonable" applies.

Strictly, there are two tests in New Zealand that depend on when the offence was committed, Pre-1985 offences are subject to the prominent British ruling DPP v. Morgan, which emphasises recklessness. Post-1985 offences are indeed on reasonableness grounds, but remember that if this were a court case, Theon does not have to prove that he had a reasonable belief - the prosecution has to prove that he lacked one. In other words, those accusing Theon of rape must show that Theon didn't reasonably think Kyra was consenting to penetration.

Which is why I think the indecent assault line is on much firmer ground.