First Night in "The Princess and The Queen"... disturbing?

[The King in Black]

I think you're underestimating people's awareness of what was going on, honestly. Being a peasant doesn't mean you're an idiot and that you can't recognize rape when you see it. It's not as if we have any peasants' actual perspectives on it, apart from a maester who has a vested interest in kissing Targ ass.

Which is why I was curious to know what the Targ women felt. If they too felt it was wrong and never spoke out, it means that anybody in the society could be.

Now if even they bought this whole nonsense and were indifferent to it, or worse saw nothing wrong with the practice it shows how much Westeros was in a desperate need of an intellectual awakening, that could only happen from the top.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Which is why I was curious to know what the Targ women felt. If they too felt it was wrong and never spoke out, it means that anybody in the society could be.

Now if even they bought this whole nonsense and were indifferent to it, or worse saw nothing wrong with the practice it shows how much Westeros was in a desperate need of an intellectual awakening, that could only happen from the top.

I think you're overestimating a maester's ability to actually give consideration to women's opinions and record them, even Targaryen women.

[ummester]

But any negative views of Martin's writing are tempered when I try writing my own novel. In the story I am writing, there is one society ruled by a female clergy, the society is a theocracy, and they lead a raiding viking like culture. Yet it is very hard to make this work in a believable fashion and I constantly find myself re-reading Martin's books to bring me back down to reality. Women are at an absurd disadvantage to men in many cases and, if you ignore this, your story will be lame. That doesn't mean you have to limit your imagination as women can kick ass realistically, but it does mean if you intend to put a female protagonist at the top of the world, you have to get pretty damn creative to both get and keep her there.

For these reasons, I have a lot of respect for Martin's writing. If people want to criticize his treatment of female characters, they really need to try writing their own novel and prove they can do a better job first. At least, I believe so.

Study Amazons.

Though I do agree, in the majority of circumstances, if it came down to aggressive physical conflict between a man and a woman, the man has the upper hand. However, the majority of men find it harder to be physically aggressive towards women than they do to other men. We are a sexually dimorphic species, biological form and function are entwined - this is just the reality of what we are. The mental freedom we now have is fairly recent and only because of the modern, technological environment we have created for ourselves.

[Jaak]

It has existed.

Not very convinced of it.

And sadly, I've actually seen the modern deviation happening. Many rich kids losing their virginities with the maids, with approval and encouragement of the parents, something the girls couldn't refuse because they would lose their jobs, and the society being ok. with it because they "work for them" or they owed them that much (many girls were brought from small towns).

Virginity of the rich kid, or is it expressly required to be the virginity of the maid?

And is the maid then allowed to leave it at one night and marry her groom and keep her job?

Nay. The point of the supposed "jus primae noctis" include that the girl is allowed to marry and be faithful to her groom after the one night.

I think that the perception that any woman working in another man´s household is employed as a part-time whore/concubine has been widespread even when/if jus primae noctis existed. Nothing particularly modern about it, and the belief was (and is) widely held by the current employers and their family members, prospective employers, prospective grooms of exmaids and current maids and by maids and prospective maids themselves. If she wanted to marry and keep her maidenhead for her groom, she would not get a job as a maid for someone else, but marry him and be a housewife... with exact same duties that a maid would have had (housework AND sex), just for her husband not for employer and his family members.

We actually hear of it from Gyldayn, too. In one year since his wedding, Aegon Younger (later II) caused three conceptions. His sister-wife (twins), a girl whose virginity he bought at Street of Silk, and a serving maid of his mother.

Nice full spectrum of the options a lazy rich boy has for his carnal appetites. His wife, an outright prostitute (and a virginity is sold at a premium), and a servant... who is somewhere between a wife and a prostitute.

We don´t hear what Aegon II got up to before his wedding, age 15. Did he keep his own virginity for his little sister, or did he already act on carnal appetites for servants and outside prostitutes before his wedding?

[Lady Fevre Dream]

If Dragon riding self proclaimed demigods say so in a society that conditions it's small folks to feudalism, small folk might consider it so

Why not just claim the reason womenfolk of the small variety on Dragonstone only want to marry some schlep is because, hey, they get to fuck a Targaryen first? If there IS one time a woman isn't looking for someone on the side, it's usually their own wedding night. If there are any women in the world of Westeros who might have half a choice about marriage, it's probably the common woman. But hey, their whole lives must be about wanting to screw a Targ for one night, right? Then again, give me the Rogue Prince, and we'll talk, LOL

[The King in Black]

Why not just claim the reason womenfolk of the small variety on Dragonstone only want to marry some schlep is because, hey, they get to fuck a Targaryen first? If there IS one time a woman isn't looking for someone on the side, it's usually their own wedding night. If there are any women in the world of Westeros who might have half a choice about marriage, it's probably the common woman. But hey, their whole lives must be about wanting to screw a Targ for one night, right? Then again, give me the Rogue Prince, and we'll talk, LOL

What I meant was smallfolk might've been conditioned to following and believing everything they want due to generations of subjugation.

[Jaak]

A fresh social experiment with a Bugatti:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/pranksters-proposition-women-sex-1m-4458876

Three out of five said yes... without an express promise of remuneration.

How many brides would say yes to someone who shows up on a dragon?

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Which is why I was curious to know what the Targ women felt. If they too felt it was wrong and never spoke out, it means that anybody in the society could be.

Now if even they bought this whole nonsense and were indifferent to it, or worse saw nothing wrong with the practice it shows how much Westeros was in a desperate need of an intellectual awakening, that could only happen from the top.

Why do you assume that the Targ women felt any sympathy/kinship to the brides in question? They're commoners!

It's about as likely as the male Targs feeling sympathy/kinship to the grooms.

[Panos Targaryen]

Here's the thing guys. All of Westeros did it. It is a First Men tradition which had been practiced for thousands of years, until a TARGARYEN KING made it illegal. And according to Roose, some northern lords still do it. But then again, if you criticize the northerners, you have to criticize the Starks too, and we can't have that, can we? It was a sick tradition, I agree, but why are you focusing on the Targaryens?

[ChillyPolly]

A fresh social experiment with a Bugatti:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/pranksters-proposition-women-sex-1m-4458876

That's called "advertising". It's not science.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Here's the thing guys. All of Westeros did it. It is a First Men tradition which had been practiced for thousands of years, until a TARGARYEN KING made it illegal. And according to Roose, some northern lords still do it. But then again, if you criticize the northerners, you have to criticize the Starks too, and we can't have that, can we? It was a sick tradition, I agree, but why are you focusing on the Targaryens?

Oh totally, First Night was practiced by many many northerners, still happening on Skagos and by the Boltons and Umbers right?

The Targs did not invent "First Night' It was already a custom in Westeros when they got there. So yeah all this shit about demigods is totally incorrect, they were just following the custom of the land they lived in. The Northerners are the ones who have really kept the practice going. It would stand to reason that some Starks are guilty of it at some point as well (being from the North).

It is a terrible practice and it sucks that the Targaryens did it on Dragonstone, there is no excuse for anyone who did it, but as usual, posters want to make out like no one is guilty except the Targaryens....., but like you said, Jaehaerys and Alysanne are the ones who eventually outlawed it, so obviously not all of them felt it was a great custom. And they outlawed it in all of Westeros after it had been the custom for possibly eons.

[ChillyPolly]

Here's the thing guys. All of Westeros did it. It is a First Men tradition which had been practiced for thousands of years, until a TARGARYEN KING made it illegal. And according to Roose, some northern lords still do it. But then again, if you criticize the northerners, you have to criticize the Starks too, and we can't have that, can we? It was a sick tradition, I agree, but why are you focusing on the Targaryens?

Sure. If we choose to believe an obviously pro-Targ historian.

In the real world, there is good reason to doubt that "right of first night" was ever a "custom". It was probably never more than an abuse of power by those lords who happened to have a thing for virgins and who happened to be the law of their particular section of land (as tends to be the case for lords). It was also used propaganda against other regimes, such as older regimes that the current regime has replaced.

Oddly enough, the known facts in Westeros seem to fit this pattern. Ned Stark does not practice "right of first night", because he is a decent guy, and this is not a decent practice. If he did want to practice it, who would stop him? Southern lords and kings do not care what takes place in the fields and cottages around Winterfell.

Other northern lords, perhaps not so decent as Ned, do not practice it either, perhaps because they do not have a particular thing for virgins. If he desires a peasant woman, he will find a way to have her no matter how long she is married, or regardless of whether she is about to get married.

But some lords DO practice it (presumably, those who are not so decent as Ned, AND who may have a particular thing for virgins). Hence, the Targs did not REALLY put an end to "right of first night" .

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Sure. If we choose to believe an obviously pro-Targ historian.

DO you have an alternate history we don't know about?

[RoamingRonin]

Not every woman would have viewed it as a privilege but let us be real here: acknowledged highborn bastards are treated just as well as trueborn children. There were women who wanted to be blessed with dragon seed for all of the luxuries that came with it.

Saying they all viewed it is rape and horror is just as bad as saying they all wanted it.

But some lords DO practice it (presumably, those who are not so decent as Ned, AND who may have a particular thing for virgins). Hence, the Targs did not REALLY put an end to "right of first night" .

But not as many lords as before. A Targaryen was the first to step up and declare it wrong. They made it illegal. Just because it still exists in small pockets of the realm doesn't mean they didn't "really" do anything about it.

[Jojen Pasta]

If you've read history or taken university level history, you will see that it is ALL written exactly like this. Historians discuss some really messed up things, but they (usually) try to be objective and detatched to the subject.

From what I understand, Maesters would look at things like this the same way - objectively. I think its not fair to call this bad writing or shameful on GRRM's part :/

[ChillyPolly]

DO you have an alternate history we don't know about?

Common sense. This "custom" (as an authentic custom) does not accord with human nature. It makes sense as an abuse of power by a particular powerful man with a particular set of erotic desires. Otherwise, it simply would not be done. The peasant girl would not want it; her husband would not want it; the Lord's wife would not want it. There is only one reason in the world to do this, and that is because the lord wants it.

It also makes sense as a specific abuse of power, or (to the extent it is alleged to be a custom) as propaganda, which is what historians suspect it to be when appears in historical sources (always applied to some other regime - never the regime the ancient writer supports).

And that's how we see it in ASOIAF. A pro-Targ historian blaming Targ bad behavior on the First Men, and then giving Targs credit for putting an end to the practice (which, however, continues).

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Not every woman would have viewed it as a privilege t but let us be real here: acknowledged highborn bastards are treated just as well as trueborn children. There were women who wanted to be blessed with dragon seed for all of the luxuries that came with it.

Saying they all viewed it is rape and horror is just as bad as saying they all wanted it.

But not as many lords as before. A Targaryen was the first to step up and declare it wrong. They made it illegal. Just because it still exists in small pockets of the realm doesn't mean they didn't "really" do anything about it.

LOL, exactly! Murder is also illegal, but many people do it, does that mean it's not really a law?

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Common sense. This "custom" (as an authentic custom) does not accord with human nature. It makes sense as an abuse of power by a particular powerful man with a particular set of erotic desires. Otherwise, it simply would not be done. The peasant girl would not want it; her husband would not want it; the Lord's wife would not want it. There is only one reason in the world to do this, and that is because the lord wants it.

It also makes sense as a specific abuse of power of (to the extent it is alleged to be a custom) as propaganda, which is what historians suspect it to be when appears in historical sources (always applied to some other regime - never the regime the ancient writer supports).

And that's how we see it in ASOIAF. A pro-Targ historian blaming Targ bad behavior on the First Men, and then giving Targs credit for putting an end to the practice (which, however, continues).

The fact that Alysanne and Jaehaerys abolished First Night did not come from TRP or TPATQ it came from D&E, The Sworn Sword, Which was not written by a 'pro-Targ' maester. So we know 100% that is an accurate fact.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The fact that Alysanne and Jaehaerys abolished First Night did not come from TRP or TPATQ it came from D&E, The Sworn Sword, Which was not written by a 'pro-Targ' maester. So we know 100% that is an accurate fact.

Uh, 150 years of pro-Targ history writing after the fact, in a very Targ-liking group?

100% that ain't.

[RoamingRonin]

Why do you assume that the Targ women felt any sympathy/kinship to the brides in question? They're commoners!

It's about as likely as the male Targs feeling sympathy/kinship to the grooms.

Why do you assume they all felt the same? Clearly they didn't as a Targaryen was the first to step up an abolish the practice.

And that's how we see it in ASOIAF. A pro-Targ historian blaming Targ bad behavior on the First Men, and then giving Targs credit for putting an end to the practice (which, however, continues).

But that's exactly what happened.