[Show and Book SPOILERS] I don't understand [scene with Cersei and Jaime]

[teemo]

Agreed 100%. Which is why it makes me concerned when people view the scene in the show as so drastically different than the books. She says "no" in both cases. The tone is different, darker in the show given that Jaime is lashing out in anger, but I'd hardly call it a ruining of his redemption arc. Mostly because I think his redemption arc is a myth.

It is drastically different. In the show it looks like rape, in the books GRRM has confirmed its consensual.

[Chebyshov]

It is drastically different. In the show it looks like rape, in the books GRRM has confirmed its consensual.

I think that raises more questions about GRRM. To me, a woman saying "no" repeatedly and punching a man in a chest while he "doesn't hear it" and tears off her clothes is not "consensual," and the notion that when she eventual gives in and "goes along with it" makes it so is troubling. I see why given Jaime and Cersei's dynamic this could be construed as consensual, but that's not where I land.

[teemo]

I think that raises more questions about GRRM. To me, a woman saying "no" repeatedly and punching a man in a chest while he "doesn't hear it" and tears off her clothes is not "consensual," and the notion that when she eventual gives in and "goes along with it" makes it so is troubling. I see why given Jaime and Cersei's dynamic this could be construed as consensual, but that's not where I land.

Maybe you should do a re-read.

[Rill Redthorn]

2: Is raping a corpse worse than rape or better?

It's worse to rape a living person who suffers, and will continue to suffer, than it is to rape a corpse that does not suffer.

I don't get why you would put something disgusting (necrophilia) down as worse than something vicious (rape.)

[Ser Not Appearing]

The more full quote from GRRM:

In the novels, Jaime is not present at Joffreys death, and indeed, Cersei has been fearful that he is dead himself, that she has lost both the son and the father/ lover/ brother. And then suddenly Jaime is there before her. Maimed and changed, but Jaime nonetheless. Though the time and place is wildly inappropriate and Cersei is fearful of discovery, she is as hungry for him as he is for her.

The whole dynamic is different in the show, where Jaime has been back for weeks at the least, maybe longer, and he and Cersei have been in each others company on numerous occasions, often quarreling. The setting is the same, but neither character is in the same place as in the books, which may be why [producers] played the sept out differently. But thats just my surmise; we never discussed this scene, to the best of my recollection.

Also, I was writing the scene from Jaimes POV, so the reader is inside his head, hearing his thoughts. On the TV show, the camera is necessarily external. You dont know what anyone is thinking or feeling, just what they are saying and doing.

If the show had retained some of Cerseis dialogue from the books, it might have left a somewhat different impression but that dialogue was very much shaped by the circumstances of the books, delivered by a woman who is seeing her lover again for the first time after a long while apart during which she feared he was dead. I am not sure it would have worked with the new timeline.

Thats really all I can say on this issue. The scene was always intended to be disturbing but I do regret if it has disturbed people for the wrong reasons.

[YourMomsBox]

It was a disgusting scene. A piss poor representation of what happened in the books. Jaime doesn't care what Cersei thinks and proceeds to rape?

Book fans seem to hate it, and for the many casuals it will ruin his character who was in the process of a nice redemption arc. Way to go, D&D. That to me torpedoed an otherwise pretty solid episode.

[Florina Laufeyson]

Oh look. This again. *extremely unamused face*

Look. Heres the skinny. The scene. It was rapey as all get-out. Deal with it. The only thing i disagree with about the outcry is that its absolute character assassination. If there isnt actual in-universe objection from Cersei about this whole affair in next week's episode, im going to assume that it was a bad direction fumble and not meant to completely derail the characters. Though i am of the mind that that particular director should be sacked. I dont like that scene and i dont think we have to like that scene. But the endless discussion of what is and what isnt rape is gross and repetitive. This whole thing is probably going to teach the show runners a lesson: Even the tiniest of omissions of dialogue make all the difference in the world. Tread Carefully.

WOW.

Looked what happened.

Everyone is talking about Game of Thrones.

Everywhere.

All the time.

I'm sure that was unintentional... :devil:

hue :devil:

[Fjordgazer]

My reading of the books gave me a clear impression that Cersei and Jaime's sexual relationship often had the "push-pull", "no-means-yes" aspect to it. I don't like that personally, but I clearly read it that way, and even though she says no, it's obviously consensual. The only sexual scenes that are given to us have this element in them, and gives me the impression that Cersei likes that dominance from Jaime and always plays that "game".

I feel like the show tried to display that (with Cersei kissing back and such) but simply failed to make it clear enough. But yeah, it's much more rape-y and forceful and angry than in the book, but I actually felt that story-wise, it was consistent with the strained relationship that the Show has written due to Jaime being back early and Cersei not wanting him. I don't feel it ruins Jaime character entirely. I think it shows him being very angry, frustrated and desperate, combined with him playing their game as usual. That combination made it look like rape. And yes, the writer who did the scene made the mistake of not adding some dialog that could have helped if he truly had intended for it to be consensual.

This comment sums it up well. And it's by a woman.

I've been stating more or less this opinion since yesterday and been called names, accused of being a potential rapist and such. It's outrageous.

[Chebyshov]

Maybe you should do a re-read.

This is offensive and uncalled for. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, rereading, rewatching, going through material only tangentially related. I even started out arguing for the "grey area" of the book scene, but as we got deeper into the conversion I became more and more uncomfortable with my position and it shifted my viewpoint. My read of the scene is borne of the content in the book. Rape is coerced sex. This is the situation in both the books and the show. To say I should reread it because you disagree is just rude.

I'm aware I'm in the minority in my assertions, and at this point it's falling on deaf ears. So much of this dialogue troubles me, which is why I've been trying to assert my claims throughout this thread despite the fact that I really had no desire to revisit the topic for a second day in a row. I'm bowing out now, but I just want say that if anyone happens to find themselves in Book!Jaime's situation, I really hope they have more respect for their partner and take their objections seriously.

[Swagwell]

It's worse to rape a living person who suffers, and will continue to suffer, than it is to rape a corpse that does not suffer.

I don't get why you would put something disgusting (necrophilia) down as worse than something vicious (rape.)

I have honestly never really thought all that much about these things with regards to better or worse, and since your moral scale seems very well defined I'm just curious.

If we are to judge the severity of a crime by the amount of sufferation it inflicts on the victim, would you agree that drugging somebody before you rape them is better than using brute force? I mean because it kinda dulls the suffering? If a person didn't know they were somehow victimized are they better off?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Tyrion definitely raped that whore. She was repulsed by him, and he knew it, and he forced her anyway. Tyrion had always been kind to whores before that and preferred the ones at least willing to pretend they were enjoying him. He was violating his own moral code there and he knew it.

Are you Implying that whores that he treated kindly weren't repulsed by him? Of course they have, Tyrion is pretty much an abomination. They had to do it anyway because of the pay. In fact, I'm sure mostly whores are repulsed by a lot of men they have to serve but do it anyway.

[Rill Redthorn]

Are you Implying that whores that he treated kindly weren't repulsed by him? Of course they have, Tyrion is pretty much an abomination. They had to do it anyway because of the pay. In fact, I'm sure mostly whores are repulsed by a lot of men they have to serve but do it anyway.

She was a slave. She had no choice. Non-slave prostitutes can reject customers if they want (unless they have a pimp who will beat them up for it.) This girl did not even have that option.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

She was a slave. She had no choice. Non-slave prostitutes can reject customers if they want (unless they have a pimp who will beat them up for it.) This girl did not even have that option.

Yes. Then she's being raped by every other costumer not only Tyrion.

[Fat Trell]

This is offensive and uncalled for. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, rereading, rewatching, going through material only tangentially related. I even started out arguing for the "grey area" of the book scene, but as we got deeper into the conversion I became more and more uncomfortable with my position and it shifted my viewpoint. My read of the scene is borne of the content in the book. Rape is coerced sex. This is the situation in both the books and the show. To say I should reread it because you disagree is just rude.

I'm aware I'm in the minority in my assertions, and at this point it's falling on deaf ears. So much of this dialogue troubles me, which is why I've been trying to assert my claims throughout this thread despite the fact that I really had no desire to revisit the topic for a second day in a row. I'm bowing out now, but I just want say that if anyone happens to find themselves in Book!Jaime's situation, I really hope they have more respect for their partner and take their objections seriously.

You're using a more modern definition of coerced, I think.

[Rill Redthorn]

I have honestly never really thought all that much about these things with regards to better or worse, and since your moral scale seems very well defined I'm just curious.

If we are to judge the severity of a crime by the amount of sufferation it inflicts on the victim, would you agree that drugging somebody before you rape them is better than using brute force? I mean because it kinda dulls the suffering? If a person didn't know they were somehow victimized are they better off?

"Sufferation" is an interesting word choice...apparently that's Rastafarian?

Suffering of the victim is definitely an issue when it comes to meting out punishment. It's not the only issue, but it's important. For example, if you decided to steal a person's kidney, you would get a harsher punishment if you carved them open without anesthesia than if you drugged them first -- but you'd get a severe punishment either way.

But a crime that involves no suffering at all is a minor crime. The suffering in the case of necrophilia is on the part of family members who don't want their loved ones' remains treated that way and some on the part of society that doesn't want you spreading any diseases you pick up that way.

Let me ask you this: If you had a daughter, how would you rate the following:

1) She is raped

2) She is flayed first and then raped

3) She dies in a drowning accident and her body is raped

Would you want the criminal in (3) treated more harshly than the rapist in (1) and (2)?

If you want to do some independent reading on moral reasoning, I'd suggest Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He has a proposed six-axis system for moral reasoning that seems like a pretty good model.

[Rill Redthorn]

Yes. Then she's being raped by every other costumer not only Tyrion.

Sure. That doesn't excuse Tyrion though.

(Isn't this the reasoning that the raper Jamie executes in ADWD tries to use? "Everyone else had her too, what's the big deal??" And Book Jaime, who for all his flaws is no rapist, treats that with the contempt it deserves.)

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I certainly see where everyone's coming from, and it is a difficult and ambiguous issue to sort out. I fall on one side of it, and I'm still working through my feelings, even after talking about it ad nauseam for 48 hours. I definitely can get on board with the call to civility!

Just made it back to the board, and wanted to thank you for that. I think we all could use a break from this for a bit. I am peacing out on this subject.

[Fjordgazer]

Sure. That doesn't excuse Tyrion though.

But this is the kind of subject that gets trickier as you immerse deeper in universes more unlike your own. What are the morals of rape in a slaving society? I reckon the clients of a slave prostitute judged themselves as "good" as long as they treated her kindly, and this assertion was accepted as correct.

[Rill Redthorn]

But this is the kind of subject that gets blurrier as you immerse deeper in universes more unlike your own. What are the morals of rape in a slaving society? I reckon the clients of a slave prostitute judged themselves as "good" as long as they treated her kindly, and this assertion was accepted as correct.

Tyrion didn't treat her kindly at all, however.

There's nothing "blurry" at all about Tyrion's behavior there and even Tyrion doesn't think there is, so I don't know what you're getting at here. Tyrion was/is on a downward slide in the books, and becoming a rapist was a sign of how far down he's fallen.

[Lady of the Falls]

In books Cersei did say no sometimes but she always gave in, I think it was just a thing they did she never said yes until she heard what she wanted from Jamie. Because this is a t.v. series, I think the creators of it felt they couldn't go into detail about every character in book because of time. Seems they're translating every book into 1 season/per book. I don't agree w/this decision I think they could of used as many seasons as they wanted to tell a more detailed/cohesive story. In t.v. series when Sir Barristan told Sir Mormont he didn't attend the small council meetings & if I recall he didn't in the show (lmk if i'm wrong) I think they're going to keep Mormont in because Barristan also didn't hide his identity like he did in the book. I hope i'm wrong about them keeping him in, I haven't been fond of the deviations from Book series. In a interview w/the 2 creators of t.v. series they said Martin asked who they believed Jon Snows mother was and based on what they said they were given permission to do it,when others had failed. IMO I don't think its was enough,i'm re-reading the books and realizing how many things they have left out/changed or just didn't elaborate on and though I like the series, I would of liked it more if I hadn't read the books.