Is Sansa going to be placed in deeper (no pun intended!) sexual situations in the latter books?

[Le Cygne]

That would be another form of giving into the system. I'm suggesting that she releases herself from the conventional dictums of society and works toward a paradigm shift. As in, a step beyond anything the QoT and Marg are doing (which is working within the "rules" of the system), and more akin to the Asha/ Arianne/ Dany model.

Yeah, I like that. What do you think about Lyanna? She broke out a bit, too.

[butterbumps!]

Yeah, I like that. What do you think about Lyanna? She broke out a bit, too.

Yes, it didn't cause a paradigm shift relating to marriage, but it certainly precipitated massive change. I've been working on and off on an OP about power and change in the series, framed around this recent quote by Martin for the WSJ:

"Power struggles seem to be omnipresent in every field of human endeavor, extending all the way up and down society. We assume that power has a certain reality. Apart from comic books, where Superman has the power to fly, the only power real human beings have is the power they think they have. You see that sometimes in the collapse of a society. Why did the Soviet Union fall? Because one day the Kremlin gave orders and the soldiers said no, and the whole thing fell apart. It's a fundamental truth that I think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. , hit on, that power depends on the obedience of the less powerful. A leader is powerful only when he says jump and people jump. He has no actual power to make them jump. It's their belief that he has power. It's an illusion, a shadow on the wall. And sometimes people stop jumping, and then the world changes."

I think that Lyanna's rebellion touches on that-- even if it didn't alter the issue of arranged marriage, she did stop jumping, and lo, systematic change followed.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

This thread hasn't been closed yet? I'm shocked!

[juanml82]

This also makes sense.

Interesting you keep clinging to the status quo when I'd just presented you with the scenario detailing what Sansa can offer the Vale that doesn't involve the system of having to marry one of them.

I repeat: The Vale lords do not want LF. Sansa can expose LF and save Jon Arryn's heir. The Vale will have more than plenty of reason to ally with a strong region given all of the outside foes that will become common enemies of all, including, but not limited to, the barrage of throne claimant invaders and the pending winter apocalypse. Returning stability to the North is arguably in their interest, as this would offer a strengthened ally. The winter apocalypse is something the Royce's would be fairly keen on taking seriously being as how House Royce was still honoring the NW tradition by sending his son there.

Whether you believe fighting against the Lannisters alongside the North is meant to be read as something the Vale wanted while Robb is still winning, I feel I should point out that Bronze Yohn wasn't seeking to stick his dick into Robb to seal the deal. Oh, and interestingly, the Waynwoods weren't requiring either that or gold. No reason to expect that Sansa mut indulge them thusly.

The North is no longer a strong region. Their armies are exhausting their last straws, their economy will collapse due winter, communications will be hard and they have fight coming to them from the North.

And do you expect the Vale Lords to pass the chance to marry a Stark of Winterfell who, depending on the timeframe, will be seen as the Heir of the North? Forget it.

Allow me to repeat this: if Sansa is the Stark who is of rough age to rule in her own name, is able to feed the North, has an untouched army to bring to the table, and Jon is an advocate for her to hold Winterfell, then I daresay people will be willing to follow her over the feral child simply because he's got a cock.

What can Rickon provide in either an apocalyptic or post-apocalytic building period that the lords will wet themselves for? When Sansa's coming to the table with ruling suitably, a food supply, and most likely an army? If Rickon is in a capacity to actually be an heir to Winterfell, he's a small, barely house-trained kid.

Why should Sansa-- or anyone in such a position-- back down just because the "status quo" is apparently male-heirs only? And why does it have to get ugly between them. He could be her (or her child's) heir-- not like she'd have to kill him. I highly doubt Rickon is in a position to command his own army over this.

It's not because Rickon has a cock. It's because he can marry into the Manderlys, he can be shaped to rule by the Manderlys and his claim as heir doesn't upset any highborn man, aka, battle commander, who has older sisters. Do you think Manderly prefers a woman with a mind of her own, or a child he can marry into his family and use as a puppet to rule the North through?

On top, what makes you think Jon, should anyone care about his opinion on this matter, would back Sansa instead of Rickon? Will Sansa have to threaten to withhold the food of the Vale and force the Watch to buy from Essos? It's all conflict, and at the worse possible time.

It can happen. It won't strengthen the North.

Not marrying anyone =/= hand tied behind your back. This is incredibly stupid. Unless, for example, you're suggesting that Rickon should get married in order to retake Winterfell too?

I am actually suggesting that Manderly support for Rickon will be conditional on a betrothal to Wylla Manderly. And since Rickon is an orphan boy with little understanding of those matters, he's unlikely to object. At least too much.

Marriage alliances are a powerful way to secure allies, I think we can agree on that. Refusing to use a powerful tool to win a war is tying a hand behind one's back.

She has to accept? Have you been reading a version of the books where Stannis (or Jon perhaps) are sitting on the throne uncontested, where Robb never became KitN, or one in which Sansa's sexuality hasn't been developed at all?

The things you say make "a more compelling storyline" are devolutions of this story and expose a certain lack of engagement with the nature of Sansa's sexual development, as well as the pulse of the rest of the series.

The status quo is not deterministic if it ever was. Sansa has non-sexual tools available to her to gain the Vale's support and build momentum toward holding the North in her own name. Sansa has spent 4 books aware of how linked sexuality and political dynamics are, articulating that she wants sex on her own terms, separate from her claim of Winterfell. It would be a complete regression for her to marry some Vale lord and produce an heir in order to gain armies or hold this castle when her entire arc is about rejecting this linkage and taking ownership of her own body. And again-- she has more than enough tools to source right now without resorting to this very thing she has been fighting against.

Choosing to marry for political reasons isn't refusing to take ownership of her body (a concept Sansa ignores). If she's the one making the choice, she'll be using her own body for personal and political gain. When Alys Karstark married the Magnar of Thenn, she was using her ownership of her body to get three hundred loyal men to back her as heir presumptive of the Karhold. And personally choose to enter a sexual arrangement with Sigorn in which they both agree to have sex with each other in exchange for the Karhold.

In other words, if there is a free choice, there is no slavery. And it's not a regression. It's maturing to the reality that there is a world with certain rules she has no power to change, but she can use to her advantage.

No, she couldn't ruin his plans at that moment. He wanted nothing that could be interpreted as giving the Lannisters a legitimate claim to the North.

She couldn't. He didn't know. Nor there was any reason to relinquish the North to the Lannisters. If Tyrion showed up in the North, Stannis can always execute him for kinslayer and make Sansa a widow, ready to marry again.

Have you read these books?

Baelish is a revolutionary the way Cersei is a feminist.

Asha, Arianne, Nymeria, Jon, the High Septon (in terms of responsibility of a ruler to the people) and especially Dany, are reformers (and in the case of Dany, an actual revolutionary).

A revolution means changing the socio-political system. A revolution in Westeros is about overthrowing the full feudal system, and that isn't happening unless the White Walkers have reached the Dornish Marches.

Asha is not a revolutionary: she wants to keep the Old Ways, with her on top. The system would remain exactly the same if she won the Kingsmoot.

Arianne is the legal heir to Dorne. There is no revolution there.

Nymeria is a historical figure, so she can't affect the future of Westeros.

Jon... he isn't really a revolutionary, but he's taking steps that could become foundational stones for a revolution later on, by letting Wildlings and their cultures permeate the feudal North. He has no intention to abolish the Night's Watch, change it's oath or even less, change the political system of the North.

The High Septon might be considered a revolutionary taking the early steps, yes. He's, in a way, the leader of a theocratic peasant revolt.

Danny is a revolutionary... in Slaver's Bay, not in Westeros.

Sansa doesn't seem to want to "rule" precisely (though, I find it just fantastic that the question of whether Rickon wants to rule hasn't been in your calculus). But she does want to go home, the Stark name, and to restore Winterfell. For that, the price of ruling as Lady of the North is one I'd hazard the guess she'd be willing to pay. Especially when she realizes she can do it in terms that do not interfere with her keeping control over her body.

I think this was answered before.

[butterbumps!]

The North is no longer a strong region. Their armies are exhausting their last straws, their economy will collapse due winter, communications will be hard and they have fight coming to them from the North.

And do you expect the Vale Lords to pass the chance to marry a Stark of Winterfell who, depending on the timeframe, will be seen as the Heir of the North? Forget it.

It's not because Rickon has a cock. It's because he can marry into the Manderlys, he can be shaped to rule by the Manderlys and his claim as heir doesn't upset any highborn man, aka, battle commander, who has older sisters. Do you think Manderly prefers a woman with a mind of her own, or a child he can marry into his family and use as a puppet to rule the North through?

On top, what makes you think Jon, should anyone care about his opinion on this matter, would back Sansa instead of Rickon? Will Sansa have to threaten to withhold the food of the Vale and force the Watch to buy from Essos? It's all conflict, and at the worse possible time.

It can happen. It won't strengthen the North.

I am actually suggesting that Manderly support for Rickon will be conditional on a betrothal to Wylla Manderly. And since Rickon is an orphan boy with little understanding of those matters, he's unlikely to object. At least too much.

Marriage alliances are a powerful way to secure allies, I think we can agree on that. Refusing to use a powerful tool to win a war is tying a hand behind one's back.

Choosing to marry for political reasons isn't refusing to take ownership of her body (a concept Sansa ignores). If she's the one making the choice, she'll be using her own body for personal and political gain. When Alys Karstark married the Magnar of Thenn, she was using her ownership of her body to get three hundred loyal men to back her as heir presumptive of the Karhold. And personally choose to enter a sexual arrangement with Sigorn in which they both agree to have sex with each other in exchange for the Karhold.

In other words, if there is a free choice, there is no slavery. And it's not a regression. It's maturing to the reality that there is a world with certain rules she has no power to change, but she can use to her advantage.

She couldn't. He didn't know. Nor there was any reason to relinquish the North to the Lannisters. If Tyrion showed up in the North, Stannis can always execute him for kinslayer and make Sansa a widow, ready to marry again.

A revolution means changing the socio-political system. A revolution in Westeros is about overthrowing the full feudal system, and that isn't happening unless the White Walkers have reached the Dornish Marches.

Asha is not a revolutionary: she wants to keep the Old Ways, with her on top. The system would remain exactly the same if she won the Kingsmoot.

Arianne is the legal heir to Dorne. There is no revolution there.

Nymeria is a historical figure, so she can't affect the future of Westeros.

Jon... he isn't really a revolutionary, but he's taking steps that could become foundational stones for a revolution later on, by letting Wildlings and their cultures permeate the feudal North. He has no intention to abolish the Night's Watch, change it's oath or even less, change the political system of the North.

The High Septon might be considered a revolutionary taking the early steps, yes. He's, in a way, the leader of a theocratic peasant revolt.

Danny is a revolutionary... in Slaver's Bay, not in Westeros.

I think this was answered before.

Can we take a moment to look at the breakdown we are having before this just keeps going?

I'm appealing to the fact that this series is about political and social crisis, that the concept of power is being repeatedly challenged and deconstructed across the series, that there's been interruptions to the status quo and more are promising to come to fruition, and that most things don't "operate as they're 'supposed' to" throughout the series.

You, on the other hand, keep arguing with points about how "it's supposed to" work. Which is irrelevant to my argument.

I will adress a few of these points, but won't continue to engage with you if you keep appealing to "the way things are supposed to work."

1. The Vale helping Sansa attain Winterfell, which in turn will help to strengthen the North (who will love her if she's their Queen Bread) serves to strengthen the Vale, as they would now have a strong partner against all these other potential common enemies. Being as how the Vale didn't impose a marriage pact on Robb as part of their desire to aid his efforts, then Sansa will not have to as some inherent necessity. Please stop arguing this point.

2. If all Manderly is looking for is a puppet, then fuck him, seriously, and take his mint and fleet. I don't happen to believe that this is his goal. That is, if he's truly pro-Stark as many seem to believe, then he'd be content to welcome Sansa to Winterfell and serve as an advisor.

Frankly, he seems to be expecting to die. Look at the way he talks about this while at Winterfell in DwD. He's not expecting to make it out. I don't think he's looking to be a puppet master.

3. Jon would back Sansa because A. she's actually suited to the role in both ability, age, and ability to provide for her subjects, which are things he considers important in a ruler according to his POVs B. has a massive chip on his shoulder about unfair inheritance laws.

4. Alys Karstark's arc has not been carefully detailed out to us such that we have 4 books of her POV reflecting on the curse of her sexuality (in truth, it's more explicitly motherhood) in relation to being horsetraded and the desire to remove herself from the game. What's more interesting-- Sansa realizes she has all the tools she needs to take Winterfell and makes a claim in her own right, or Sansa follows the way "things are supposed to work" and marries herself off in order to gain tools she doesn't even need? And we're talking about a story where female inheritance is an issue pervading multiple plots, here.

5. It's laughable to me that you won't accept the reformist/ revolutionary threads the series is developing unless it's an all or nothing scenario. I guess Nymeria wasn't a revolutionary because she didn't overturn the feudal system. I cannot take this seriously.

6. Dany has not yet reached Westeros. This doesn't negate the fact that she's a revolutionary.

[Mladen]

OK, I think that here is a clash of the opinions based on narrow-mindedness of how women can seize power in Westeros...

The traditional way, the way we have seen being enforced by now is that woman can seize power only through her father, husband or son. We have plenty examples of that. Cersei is a prime example of someone having power through the male figures in her life. First her power came from being Tywin's daughter, later Robert's consort and lastly as Joffrey's and Tommen's mother. That is all how women's supposed to have power in the patriarchy world such as Westeros. And that is our starting point...

But, as the plot resolves, so does the eminent change comes. Through wide spectrum of female characters, most notably Dany, Arianne and Asha, we see not just desire, hope or ideal of woman seizing the power on her own, but undeniable possibility of that happening. This is not some feminist manifesto, but GRRM did indeed put his foot forward into reshaping the world of Westeros. Many posters here argued that Iron Throne and Seven Kingdoms are obsolete as institutions, that they have proven flawed and inefficient and that simply time has come for a change. Some saw it in dismantling the throne and some saw it in changes of fundamental principles Westeros was built on, and one of those is definitely the perception of woman having power.

Where does Sansa fit into all of this? As Sansa said about herself: "they all want me for my claim", it is rather clear where her "power" originates from. In the same way Arya will find what truly means to be highborn lady held captive by Brotherhood, Sansa learns that she is being tossed from one husband to another just because of her claim. She makes abundantly clear that she does not want that anymore. And her reaction to LF's proposition of marriage is more than enough, or go step back and remember how she reacted of being married to SR when Lysa offered her that. Both time, the initial respond was "no". Both time she made perfectly clear that she doesn't want to be married off to someone and she even uses her marriage as the shield against it. But, nonetheless, what she wants is one thing, but what must be done is completely another. But, the real question here is it such difference?

There is no doubt that with every new chapter Dany is getting closer to Westeros. When she arrives, she will be the "agent of change", that piece that will change the game completely. Not just by bringing dragons or attempting to restore the fallen dynasty, but because she is shaking the entire systems to the core. And as we can easily predict, just as in Slaver's bay, Dany will shake Westerosi system by fighting for what she thinks is hers. With such game changer in Westeros, it would be naive to think that Sansa's story will retrograde to being "tennis marriage ball being tossed from one side to another". Not because it literary makes no sense, but simply because Dany will bring someone with her who will make all plans for Sansa's marriage obsolete - Tyrion. Even though, neither Tyrion nor Sansa want to be in that marriage, the marriage itself serves as umbrella against all possible arranged marriages. And between Vale lords who don't trust LF, Sansa being in line of inheritance of more than half the kingdom, being blood relative of Robert Arryn, I think it is safe to say that Sansa might seize power through different sources - alliances, plots, games, and not marriage. Finally, what we will see in the future for Sansa will certainly not be the mere repetitive continuation of her going from one arranged marriage to another. Guys, time has come for flipping the table Westerosi played their Game of thrones at... And that will affect everyone, Sansa included.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I already said this in another Sansa thread, but with the way her narrative trajectory is going it is pretty obvious that Sansa will do what Elizabeth I did. I will give you a quote of Sansa who makes it quite clear she is fed up with arranged marriages.

She did not want to wed again, not now, perhaps not ever

[butterbumps!]

I already said this in another Sansa thread, but with the way her narrative trajectory is going it is pretty obvious that Sansa will do what Elizabeth I did.

I agree with this, but would posit it might be less about the "the Virgin Queen" and rather something closer to a Mother Queen (and I should specify, I tend to think it will be Lady of Winterfell rather than a literal "queen").

BTW, Juanm-- "revolutionary" and "reform" aren't synonyms. A reformer makes changes within a system. A revolutionary seeks to overturn broader systems. Hence, why I called everyone I mentioned except Dany and Nym "reformers."

[Mladen]

I already said this in another Sansa thread, but with the way her narrative trajectory is going it is pretty obvious that Sansa will do what Elizabeth I did.

The narrative trajectory of Sansa does have some striking parallels with Elizabeth's. From difficult childhood to Thomas Seymour's signs of affection (paralleling LF) to her legitimacy being questioned, many marriage proposals and lastly Virgin symbolism, Sansa's storyline has been mostly compared to Elizabeth's. And although that wouldn't perhaps be the best ending for Sansa (ruling alone as Virgin Queen), there are undeniable parallels.

ninja\d by bumps... :)

[Leonardo]

There is no doubt that with every new chapter Dany is getting closer to Westeros

Dunno, I think there's pleeenty of doubt for that lol

[Queen Sansa Stark]

I agree with this, but would posit it might be less about the "the Virgin Queen" and rather something closer to a Mother Queen.

BTW, Juanm-- "revolutionary" and "reform" aren't synonyms. A reformer makes changes within a system. A revolutionary seeks to overturn broader systematic customs. Hence, why I called everyone I mentioned except Dany and Nym "reformers."

I don't think Sansa will be a real virgin either especially if you take note with what kind of women she is interacting with. A bastard girl who had sex before marriage and a noble woman who is not afraid to admit she enjoys having sex. Besides somehow I doubt that Elizabeth was even a virgin all her life. :lol:

[Queen Sansa Stark]

The narrative trajectory of Sansa does have some striking parallels with Elizabeth's. From difficult childhood to Thomas Seymour's signs of affection (paralleling LF) to her legitimacy being questioned, many marriage proposals and lastly Virgin symbolism, Sansa's storyline has been mostly compared to Elizabeth's. And although that wouldn't perhaps be the best ending for Sansa (ruling alone as Virgin Queen), there are undeniable parallels.

ninja\d by bumps... :)

Plus it could be argued that Cersei is the Mary Tudor to her Elizabeth. I mean Elizabeth was also held captive for a year at a court by Mary. Sounds a little bit familiar. And if I recall right Elizabeth was also temporarily a bastard and Sansa is right now temporarily a "bastard".

[butterbumps!]

I don't think Sansa will be a real virgin either especially if you take note with what kind of women she is interacting with. A bastard girl who had sex before marriage and a noble woman who is not afraid to admit she enjoys having sex. Besides somehow I doubt that Elizabeth was even a virgin all her life. :lol:

lol, no no, I wasn't implying that I thought Liz I was a literal virgin. I meant that I can see Sansa not only ruling in her own right and refusing to marry for political alliance, but bearing a child that will become her heir, carrying on the Stark name, which would be a departure from the Elizabeth model.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

lol, no no, I wasn't implying that I thought Liz I was a literal virgin. I meant that I can see Sansa not only ruling in her own right and refusing to marry for political alliance, but bearing a child that will become her heir, carrying on the Stark name, which would be a departure from the Elizabeth model.

I get it. Plus may add that I absolutely love your previous posts :)

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

Yeah, I like that. What do you think about Lyanna? She broke out a bit, too.

Kinda hard to say. I still think there's a possibility that the official story is actually the truth (I kinda find it odd that she would bitch about Robert cheating and then run off with a married man).

The North is no longer a strong region. Their armies are exhausting their last straws, their economy will collapse due winter, communications will be hard and they have fight coming to them from the North.

And do you expect the Vale Lords to pass the chance to marry a Stark of Winterfell who, depending on the timeframe, will be seen as the Heir of the North? Forget it.

It's not because Rickon has a cock. It's because he can marry into the Manderlys, he can be shaped to rule by the Manderlys and his claim as heir doesn't upset any highborn man, aka, battle commander, who has older sisters. (1) Do you think Manderly prefers a woman with a mind of her own, or a child he can marry into his family and use as a puppet to rule the North through?

(2) On top, what makes you think Jon, should anyone care about his opinion on this matter, would back Sansa instead of Rickon? Will Sansa have to threaten to withhold the food of the Vale and force the Watch to buy from Essos? It's all conflict, and at the worse possible time.

It can happen. It won't strengthen the North.

(3)I am actually suggesting that Manderly support for Rickon will be conditional on a betrothal to Wylla Manderly. And since Rickon is an orphan boy with little understanding of those matters, he's unlikely to object. At least too much.

Marriage alliances are a powerful way to secure allies, I think we can agree on that. Refusing to use a powerful tool to win a war is tying a hand behind one's back.

Choosing to marry for political reasons isn't refusing to take ownership of her body (a concept Sansa ignores). If she's the one making the choice, she'll be using her own body for personal and political gain. When Alys Karstark married the Magnar of Thenn, she was using her ownership of her body to get three hundred loyal men to back her as heir presumptive of the Karhold. And personally choose to enter a sexual arrangement with Sigorn in which they both agree to have sex with each other in exchange for the Karhold.

In other words, if there is a free choice, there is no slavery. And it's not a regression. It's maturing to the reality that there is a world with certain rules she has no power to change, but she can use to her advantage.

(4)She couldn't. He didn't know. Nor there was any reason to relinquish the North to the Lannisters. If Tyrion showed up in the North, Stannis can always execute him for kinslayer and make Sansa a widow, ready to marry again.

A revolution means changing the socio-political system. A revolution in Westeros is about overthrowing the full feudal system, and that isn't happening unless the White Walkers have reached the Dornish Marches.

Asha is not a revolutionary: she wants to keep the Old Ways, with her on top. The system would remain exactly the same if she won the Kingsmoot.

Arianne is the legal heir to Dorne. There is no revolution there.

Nymeria is a historical figure, so she can't affect the future of Westeros.

Jon... he isn't really a revolutionary, but he's taking steps that could become foundational stones for a revolution later on, by letting Wildlings and their cultures permeate the feudal North. He has no intention to abolish the Night's Watch, change it's oath or even less, change the political system of the North.

The High Septon might be considered a revolutionary taking the early steps, yes. He's, in a way, the leader of a theocratic peasant revolt.

Danny is a revolutionary... in Slaver's Bay, not in Westeros.

I think this was answered before.

1. Actually, it depends on how loyal Manderly is to House Stark. If he is truly loyal and not a schemer trying get power, then no, he is not looking for a puppet. He might even prefer an adult(ish) Stark who can actually rule.

2. Quite easily with the scenario you set up. His support would be for Sansa and the execution of Manderly who is using his brother as a pawn. What sort of brother would find that an acceptable fate for his little brother?

3. Well, there is the rest of House Stark who would have a problem with their youngest and most vulnerable sibling turned into a puppet by a treacherous snake. This would be the most likely chance of a "Stark" vs Stark conflict. They wouldn't even consider it as going to war with Rickon, but saving him from Manderly.

4. Stannis specifically refereed to her as Lady Lannister. It's pretty clear his problem is her marriage to Tyrion rather than Sansa herself.

2. If all Manderly is looking for is a puppet, then fuck him, seriously, and take his mint and fleet. I don't happen to believe that this is his goal. That is, if he's truly pro-Stark as many seem to believe, then he'd be content to welcome Sansa to Winterfell and serve as an advisor.

Frankly, he seems to be expecting to die. Look at the way he talks about this while at Winterfell in DwD. He's not expecting to make it out. I don't think he's looking to be a puppet master.

I do want to say this is my general thoughts on Manderly. I believe he is a loyal. And if he is not loyal to the Starks (or if he is trying to manipulate Stannis and then stab in the back once Stannis restored House Stark, ala GNC), then - as butters said - fuck him.

[mambru]

Now back to Sansa: I think the whole debate whether Baelish will ever lay hand on Sansa and if she will agree to it or not isn't the important one for her character. It is a fixation of her fans that does a disservice to that (Sansa) protagonist. LF offers her so much more than more or less good sex: he offers her what no one gave her so far: being taken seriously as partner, as co-thinker. Her asks her opinion, tells her his plans and listens to her answers. No one did that for her until now...

He isn't doing it now, really. He's demanded that she act the part of dutiful daughter, and now and then he'll dole out a little instruction and information for her to absorb in return for her absolute obedience to that role. He'll pat her on the head as a reward when she shows herself especially bright at understanding the scraps of information he allows her, but partner? Co-thinker? When has he ever asked her her permission to use her as a tool in his schemes - much less asked her help in coming up with his plans? IMO, it's fairly obvious he keeps the role of planner strictly to himself, and in his eyes Sansa's role is that of worshipful lackey who is being trained to carry out his schemes as faithfully and helpfully as possible.

Look at Sansa's last chapter. For the first half "Alayne" acts out the role of dutiful, obedient daughter that she thinks of LF as "Father" even in her own thoughts, straining herself to the utmost to act as he would want her to act in getting SR down the mountain. Having managed this satisfactorily, she goes to report to LF...

"The Merling King's returned to Gulltown, and old Oswell had some tales to tell."

She knew better than to ask what sort of tales. If Petyr had wanted her to know, he would have told her.

Sound like a relationship of equal partners to you?

Sansa's still acting and THINKING obedient, dutiful daughter to LF, who speaks and acts toward her as 'father' - then when he gets her alone, promptly takes advantage of that obedience by kissing her the way no father ought to kiss her, giving her no choice about it and even ORDERING her to do so next time she greets him - all while continuing to call her "daughter," as he pulls her down onto his lap.

THEN, he gives her her marching orders. She is to be betrothed to Harry Hardyng, win his heart, and be LF's accomplice in the eventual murder of her cousin SR so that she can be LF's catspaw and puppet in manipulating the new Lord Paramount of the Vale. He does not consult with her as a "partner" before arranging any of this - he does it all first and then dumps his plans on her as a fait accompli that she will have to carry out as best she can. He couches his plans as "gifts" to her, but they are to benefit him as much or more than Sansa herself, giving him a foothold on power in the Vale beyond the temporary one of SR's Regent - and Sansa will have to do all the heavy lifting to GET those so-called "gifts" for LF - win Harry's heart (whether she wants it or not), marry and have sex with him (whether she wants him or not), keep her silence and be LF's accomplice in killing an innocent child in what (for her) amounts to an act of kinslaying. Having dumped these plans on her and giving her no choice to refuse, LF again violates the boundaries of fatherhood that he's demanded by requesting another kiss as a reward for all the "favors" he's just done for her. IMO, it's clear that the sexual violation of boundaries is of a piece with everything else about their relationship - her role is to give in and obey, obey, obey.

So LF thinking of Sansa as "co-thinker?" "Partner?" No way in hell. She would have to TAKE that power, he would never give it up voluntarily.

[Queen Sansa Stark]

Plus aside from Sansa being similar to Elizabeth I it is also possible that grrm is drawing her (Sansa) a parallel to Rohanne Webber a.k.a Red Widow from the Dunk and Egg series. Redhead, heard thousand of empty courtesies, might have loved a not-exactly-knight if not that status was too low for her, trusted only in the strength of her home instead of men, had a relative's will make trouble for regarding her inheritance status. Sure there also many differences, but perhaps those will happen in the future.

[Le Cygne]

Kinda hard to say. I still think there's a possibility that the official story is actually the truth (I kinda find it odd that she would bitch about Robert cheating and then run off with a married man).

Just from an artistic standpoint, this author is a romantic, would he make this central relationship an abduction and rape? There are the things Ned said about the two of them, or didn't say, that shows no indication of that. And the knight of the laughing tree ending up with all of that beautiful spirit brutally crushed? And the tower of joy for the place it happens? From an author who loves playful phallic symbols? What kind of a story is that? Plus all the other hints. I think she fell for Rhaegar and he fell for her. She didn't love Robert, that was the problem. She didn't want to marry him, and she didn't.

[mambru]

Well, my thought is less that Sansa wants to remain a virgin and more that she doesn't want to be touched except on her own terms.

I think the way I see the issue of sexuality evolving in her arc is more that I don't see her becoming predatory with it. That's the major thing for me-- she wants to be released from the system that places her value in the context of her ability to produce heirs, and predatory seduction doesn't get her there. Realizing that she can regain Winterfell in her own right gets her partially there; having a child that's hers and controlling hers and her child's claim through this gets her the rest of the way.

If I have more time later, I can maybe put together the reasons why I see this manifesting as more of a mother-role than one of predatory seduction.

And I do actually see her becoming sexual with someone while "Alayne." In fact, this is why I think the Bael-the-Bard type scenario I mentioned upthread could actually work-- she'd sleep with someone as an anonymous woman, whereby the the man wouldn't be aware of the claim or the like, and thus, the idea that this child is hers and subject to no other claims could be pragmatically accomplished.

In theory I like the idea of Sansa deciding to opt out of the orthodox Westerosi game by having her own child (like the Mormont women, wasn't it?) instead of giving power over her claim to some undesired husband - but only if she has taken some measure of power for herself first. IMO, she wouldn't want to have a child while she's powerless to be a potential hostage to fortune - someone she can't protect.

[barmyscouser]

He isn't doing it now, really. He's demanded that she act the part of dutiful daughter, and now and then he'll dole out a little instruction and information for her to absorb in return for her absolute obedience to that role. He'll pat her on the head as a reward when she shows herself especially bright at understanding the scraps of information he allows her, but partner? Co-thinker? When has he ever asked her her permission to use her as a tool in his schemes - much less asked her help in coming up with his plans? IMO, it's fairly obvious he keeps the role of planner strictly to himself, and in his eyes Sansa's role is that of worshipful lackey who is being trained to carry out his schemes as faithfully and helpfully as possible.

Look at Sansa's last chapter. For the first half "Alayne" acts out the role of dutiful, obedient daughter that she thinks of LF as "Father" even in her own thoughts, straining herself to the utmost to act as he would want her to act in getting SR down the mountain. Having managed this satisfactorily, she goes to report to LF...

Sound like a relationship of equal partners to you?

Sansa's still acting and THINKING obedient, dutiful daughter to LF, who speaks and acts toward her as 'father' - then when he gets her alone, promptly takes advantage of that obedience by kissing her the way no father ought to kiss her, giving her no choice about it and even ORDERING her to do so next time she greets him - all while continuing to call her "daughter," as he pulls her down onto his lap.

THEN, he gives her her marching orders. She is to be betrothed to Harry Hardyng, win his heart, and be LF's accomplice in the eventual murder of her cousin SR so that she can be LF's catspaw and puppet in manipulating the new Lord Paramount of the Vale. He does not consult with her as a "partner" before arranging any of this - he does it all first and then dumps his plans on her as a fait accompli that she will have to carry out as best she can. He couches his plans as "gifts" to her, but they are to benefit him as much or more than Sansa herself, giving him a foothold on power in the Vale beyond the temporary one of SR's Regent - and Sansa will have to do all the heavy lifting to GET those so-called "gifts" for LF - win Harry's heart (whether she wants it or not), marry and have sex with him (whether she wants him or not), keep her silence and be LF's accomplice in killing an innocent child in what (for her) amounts to an act of kinslaying. Having dumped these plans on her and giving her no choice to refuse, LF again violates the boundaries of fatherhood that he's demanded by requesting another kiss as a reward for all the "favors" he's just done for her. IMO, it's clear that the sexual violation of boundaries is of a piece with everything else about their relationship - her role is to give in and obey, obey, obey.

So LF thinking of Sansa as "co-thinker?" "Partner?" No way in hell. She would have to TAKE that power, he would never give it up voluntarily.

Does LF plan to muder SR? I remember LF despairing that he will die, which is kind of callous given that SR is his bastard.