More homosexuality in the series

[RoamingRonin]

I knew the word "agenda" was coming. :lol:

[Bonifer Tasty]

Jon's Beard: I did not mean to say that "Jon Connington" was non-heteronormative. I meant that having a POV from a queer character was providing a non-normative reading. Because it is. And yes, I don't mean that Martin should make characters who resemble modern "lesbians" or "gay men" or any other socially constructed identity. You have to write like a lawyer on this website sometimes...but I guess that what comes of all this discrepant experience.

What I'm talking about, to put it plainly, is the social and psychological experience of people who want to fuck people of the same sex - however that construes itself in a cultural situation - the physical and emotional desires are there in a certain uncountable number of people, whether there is a social category that enables the expression or not. That's why a POV chapter is what matters here, because Martin can play with the mentality of a non-heteronormative experience in the context of his Medieval-ish world. One of the reasons a person like JonCon might have such strong opinions about manliness (his own and others) is, ya know...

And to another poster writing about it not being wrong to assume someone is straight because the majority of people are straight: I didn't mean heteronormative to refer to how we calculate likelihoods, because to calculate a likelihood is already to have realized that there is a diverse set of possible answers, the most likely of which is "hetero". I meant heteronormative to refer to narratives (like those in movies, or TV shows, or novels) which (unlike for a real person who can think and react) convey situations as though there could be no other possible version or experience, where silence is in fact non-existence.

I think Martin is mostly NOT writing a heteronormative narrative, and that he's been thoughtful about the diversity of experience. And I appreciate that. But he, like any of us, could still do better.

[sj4iy]

You have cannon and text to show his attraction to female characters in the series. But you don't have cannon to prove he is a heterosexual. You interpret that cannon in such a way because you are a heterosexual and don't view the narrative or indeed the world through a queer lens.

This is utterly ridiculous.

To say that homosexuals see everything through a 'queer lens' is patronizing. Homosexuals aren't trying to apply their own sexuality on everything they see. If a homosexual reads a book about a man who was in a sexual relationship with one woman and then is attracted to another woman, there's absolutely no reason that they would see that person as homosexual...anymore than a heterosexual would read about a man who is in a sexual relationship with another man and say "that's a heterosexual". Being one or the other doesn't mean you can't see it from someone else's POV without trying to force your own sexuality onto it.

Also, it's "canon", not "cannon".

[JonCon's Red Beard]

You have cannon and text to show his attraction to female characters in the series. But you don't have cannon to prove he is a heterosexual. You interpret that cannon in such a way because you are a heterosexual and don't view the narrative or indeed the world through a queer lens.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a long long time in the whole story of me posting in boards since I first start using internet.

I didn't know that GRRM wrote Jon and many other men in some sort of secret language that only homosexuals were able to understand. I imagine that, in the same way, Jaime's chapters need some sort of heterosexual Rosetta Stone for homosexuals to understand that he in fact likes females.

really, are you ten?

Jon's Beard: I did not mean to say that "Jon Connington" was non-heteronormative. I meant that having a POV from a queer character was providing a non-normative reading. Because it is. And yes, I don't mean that Martin should make characters who resemble modern "lesbians" or "gay men" or any other socially constructed identity. You have to write like a lawyer on this website sometimes...but I guess that what comes of all this discrepant experience.

I get what you say, but I guess you'll have to admit that even having gay characters in ASOIAF is completely irrelevant.

For example, we latinos have Pascal in the show. It makes little difference that he's latino because there is no LA in Westeros, he's not there to represent any kind of social/cultural/racial group, only to be a Dornish man, a prince, who doesn't know nor is related to any struggles latinos have in USA or any other part of the world. The only differences he makes is that he's from Chile (although raised in USA).

It's the same case with the gay characters in ASOIAF. Take Renly. Him being King makes no difference if he was gay or not. He still married Margaery, people still followed him because they could benefit from being a King and as long as he marries and have heirs, no one cares.

And having a PoV character like Conningtons helps even less than Renly, because as I pointed out before, him being gay makes no difference either: his story isn't about him being homosexual, it's about him going home and crowning Aegon. If we switched Elia instead of Rhaegar, we had Connington being straight and it would make no difference to his plot. In fact, Connington, a gay man, has the same bias and sexist misconceptions about how men and women should behave, very much like any other straight man in Westeros, and had the war never happened, he probably would be married with kids and probably bitter about that (like he is now, but without the wife and kids).

So, really, having a gay character in ASOIAF is very very irrelevant. No one cares. People don't put Renly down for being gay, nor Loras, not Connington. In fact, many people didn't even notice they are gay at all.

[Bonifer Tasty]

So, really, having a gay character in ASOIAF is very very irrelevant. No one cares. People don't put Renly down for being gay, nor Loras, not Connington. In fact, many people didn't even notice they are gay at all.

I think I get what you say also - when you say "No one cares", you mean, no one is angry or having a big problem with "gay" characters such as Renly. But that isn't what I or some of the others on this forum are talking about. In a different sense, some of us care very much. We WANT people to notice they are not sexually heterosexual.

Just because it is irrelevant to you, does not make it "very very irrelevant" to others.

And possibly, given what you say about Latinos, having no Latinos would be irrelevant if Westeros were really a world. But we're not talking about the world inside Westeros. We're talking about being people, in this world, who are reading and loving a story, in this world, that taps into our own experiences: our ethnicities, our genders, and yes, our sexualities.

And, as a last thought, in real life no gay person's "story" is about being a homosexual, as if being homosexual were a reason for existing rather than merely being a condition of one's experience. But Song of Ice and Fire is a story, and certainly, in a story, a character's sexuality should not really BE the main story of that character. But c'mon. Tyrion Lannister's story is not really about him being a heterosexual, but I hardly think you could claim his heterosexuality isn't part of his story! Nor could you rightly say of Tyrion "him being a little person makes no difference either: his story isn't about him being a little person." His story isn't ABOUT him being a little person, surely, but that can't be the same thing as saying his status as a little person is irrelevant! Connington's same-sex desire for Rhaegar has relevance in the story, as I'm sure we'll all discover more fully. If I had to guess, I'd say that his tortured loyalty to the dead prince is fairly strongly based on his love for him - and since Martin has said he is gay, it's not a stretch to think that his love was of a particularly strong type. His homosexuality is not the story of Connington in and of itself, but how could it not be part of it? And if it is part of it, how could it be called irrelevant?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

I think I get what you say also - when you say "No one cares", you mean, no one is angry or having a big problem with "gay" characters such as Renly. But that isn't what I or some of the others on this forum are talking about. In a different sense, some of us care very much. We WANT people to notice they are not sexually heterosexual.

Who people? Many people know Renly and Loras aren't heterosexual. And again, no one in Westeros seem to have anything to say against it.

We've seen people being hanged for being rapists, we've seen Cersei being accused of adultery, and Margaery for not being a virgin. No one has been hanged or sent to prison for being homosexual or having a male partner.

Just because it is irrelevant to you, does not make it "very very irrelevant" to others.

And possibly, given what you say about Latinos, having no Latinos would be irrelevant if Westeros were really a world. But we're not talking about the world inside Westeros. We're talking about being people, in this world, who are reading and loving a story, in this world, that taps into our own experiences: our ethnicities, our genders, and yes, our sexualities.

But Westeros isn't our world. Their approach to homosexuality is different from the one we have. So, indeed, anyone can want anything in the story. Some other would like to see more black characters and that's ok. But those characters being black probably means nothing else beside them being black.

Connington's same-sex desire for Rhaegar has relevance in the story, as I'm sure we'll all discover more fully. If I had to guess, I'd say that his tortured loyalty to the dead prince is fairly strongly based on his love for him - and since Martin has said he is gay, it's not a stretch to think that his love was of a particularly strong type. His homosexuality is not the story of Connington in and of itself, but how could it not be part of it? And if it is part of it, how could it be called irrelevant?

No, it doesn't. Connington was in love with someone and tried to gain that love in battle, lost and got exiled. Had he been in love with other woman, the same could have happened, exactly as it happened with Connington right now before he met Aegon.

[Bonifer Tasty]

Who people? Many people know Renly and Loras aren't heterosexual. And again, no one in Westeros seem to have anything to say against it.

We've seen people being hanged for being rapists, we've seen Cersei being accused of adultery, and Margaery for not being a virgin. No one has been hanged or sent to prison for being homosexual or having a male partner.

But Westeros isn't our world. Their approach to homosexuality is different from the one we have. So, indeed, anyone can want anything in the story. Some other would like to see more black characters and that's ok. But those characters being black probably means nothing else beside them being black.

No, it doesn't. Connington was in love with someone and tried to gain that love in battle, lost and got exiled. Had he been in love with other woman, the same could have happened, exactly as it happened with Connington right now before he met Aegon.

Ok. We clearly don't find one another the least bit convincing. On to the next topic!

[Yezzan's favorite]

I don't know if that helps, but as ASOIAF is based on some fantastic middles - ages :

Homosexuality and heterosexuality didn't exist before the 19th century. Of course, they were lots of people engaging romantic and sexual relationships with same - sex partners, but it wasn't considered as an identity or a defining characteristic. It was considered a behavior (in most period, a sinful behavior).

So technically, if Westeros hold the same view as our world's middle ages, then we can't really use the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual"

[Free Northman Reborn]

If 90% of people are straight, then the world is indeed "heteronormative".

And assuming someone of unknown sexuality to be part of the 90% group rather than the 10% group is perfectly reasonable, until proven otherwise.

[Aemond's Eye]

You have cannon and text to show his attraction to female characters in the series. But you don't have cannon to prove he is a heterosexual. You interpret that cannon in such a way because you are a heterosexual and don't view the narrative or indeed the world through a queer lens.

Pray tell, what exactly is a "queer lens"? And when there's textual evidence of a male character being attracted towards females, and none that suggests they're attracted to other males, how would one be inferring his heterosexuality?

In the example of Magneto we know he fathered Quicksilver and the Red Witch, and likely Polaris. We don't ever read of him being attracted to other men, but we do see other homosexuals or bisexual characters in those stories, some of whom he interacts with. It's hardly a leap to then read Magneto as a heterosexual. Nothing to do with me not having "a queer lens" so much as there being no suggestion in the stories that he's sexually involved with other men.

[ambi76]

Well, GRRM kinda had some fun with the criticism of his Renly/Loras stuff being too subtle (I still think the problem here was mostly people just not giving a single fuck about those two characters no matter their sexual orientation) in Dunk & Egg -The Mystery Knight and going all out with Daemon II Blackfyre.

Except people still didn't get it. :bang:

[Skythe1]

Well, GRRM kinda had some fun with the criticism of his Renly/Loras stuff being too subtle (I still think the problem here was mostly people just not giving a single fuck about those two characters no matter their sexual orientation) in Dunk & Egg -The Mystery Knight and going all out with Daemon II Blackfyre.

Except people still didn't get it. :bang:

I do find it a little odd that we have explicit incest between Jaime & Cersei, but the Renly & Loras relationship was kept rather implicit.

[Kaguya]

I do find it a little odd that we have explicit incest between Jaime & Cersei, but the Renly & Loras relationship was kept rather implicit.

Because the incest played a more prominent role in the plot.

[Skythe1]

Because the incest played a more prominent role in the plot.

Well yeah, but Renly & Loras wasn't exactly unimportant.

[tf13]

I said it in another thread, but I think Satin may be a female posing as a boy. We weren't told about Danny Flint for nothing.

[Ceiteach]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a long long time in the whole story of me posting in boards since I first start using internet.

A+ for snark! I'm glad I could broaden your mind.

Pray tell, what exactly is a "queer lens"? And when there's textual evidence of a male character being attracted towards females, and none that suggests they're attracted to other males, how would one be inferring his heterosexuality?

It's called queer theory.

I'm not even advocating that Jon is gay, I'm just not so quick to say that he isn't. This seems to be a ridiculously touchy subject for some of you.

[The North Dismembers]

I said it in another thread, but I think Satin may be a female posing as a boy. We weren't told about Danny Flint for nothing.

Satin is said to have a beard...

[sj4iy]

A+ for snark! I'm glad I could broaden your mind.

It's called queer theory.

I'm not even advocating that Jon is gay, I'm just not so quick to say that he isn't. This seems to be a ridiculously touchy subject for some of you.

No, you're trying to say that since people are only seeing Jon as heterosexual, it's because we are too narrow-minded to see him as homosexual...despite the clear evidence of heterosexuality and the lack of any evidence at all for homosexuality.

Seeing things that aren't there doesn't make one "open minded".

[ambi76]

I said it in another thread, but I think Satin may be a female posing as a boy. We weren't told about Danny Flint for nothing.

The girl posing as a boy is Sarella/Alleras.

[TheWitch]

I wanted this to be a nice debate but some people have posted some really out of order remarks. I'm not creepy for saying it would be cool if Jon and Sation had a slight attraction. If I said I wanted Jamie and brienne to have a romance is get a tut for being a 'shipper' at wors, but when I make it gay, it becomes creepy. They issue is that you find being gay creepy. Secondly, and forgive my bluntness, it's very easy for straight people to say they're are enough gay characters. Ive gone through life reading more books than I can count and have cherished the handful of developed gay characters I could find. Asoiaf means so much to me and I'm so happy with the level of gay characters in it already. As a student of medieval history, I understand the nature of hiding homosexuality in the medieval world, and I think it's important to include this. But having a a couple more gay characters in also a plus to add realism to the world. And again I'm not asking for Jon to fucking fist satin, so don't call me creepy OK.