Disillusioned with Targaryens (Rhaenys as an adulteress)

[Forever May]

As has been said, we are told Aegon married Rhaenys out of desire/for love but that does not mean she loved him, it just means he loved/desired her.

It is quite possible she had no say in the matter, as I imagine it was a discussion between Aegon and their father.

She took him to wife? really I thought it was the other way around with Rhaenys the wife and Aegon the Husband? Gosh it really was an unconventional marriage what with the incest and the polygamy and now you say she took him to wife, and not the other way around. gosh...And she Ushered her vows you say. was it like a Disney move with dancing singing "vows" skipping around, so she what, she ushered them out of the room, passed the alter, over the broom???

So the first paragraph is scolding me for having made an assumption and the second paragraph, you make an assumption all of your own.

When people are married, they take each other as wife and husband. The vows go both ways. Are you suggesting you think marriage vows are unimportant or something?

I think its perfectly understandable for a woman who is made to marry her brother, whom she may not have romantic feelings for to have sex outside that marriage yes. I think it is perfectly understandable for any woman in an arranged marriage, in a culture where they themselves are just not consulted as to who will be their husband to decide to take a lover yes.

Now you're assuming Rhaenys was forced into marrying Aegon. There's no reason to think that.

Anyway, wedding vows are wedding vows. You break them at great cost. It's not a small thing and shouldn't be dismissed, especially in a family where inheritance is based on blood, as is the right to rule. And if Rhaenys was caught, Aegon should've thrown her out for betraying him. Although the punishment for adultery in Westeros was a lot harder than that.

I'd think it pretty dickish for a guy who has pushed an unwanted marriage on a woman to be wroth at her cheating.

Where does it say it was pushed? There's nothing whatsoever to suggest this. There is evidence saying they were in love. You're completely making stuff up now.

You seem to be very sanctimonious about wedding vows, but what is the value in any vow when it was not freely taken? A wedding vow is a beautiful meaningful promise when it is between two people who give mutual consent. But we do NOT know that was the case here.

I seriously doubt you are prepared to take any wedding vow seriously. There's no evidence Rhaenys and Aegon didn't take the vow seriously, but you are not prepared to show respect for the marriage. I think you will try and excuse any adultery anywhere. Am I wrong? In the end, I am saying nothing other than the marriage was serious and Rhaenys committed adultery, which is a moral sin. Why do you have a problem with this argument? If you think it is factually wrong, then say so. Otherwise, stop trying to defend despicable behavior that results in the humiliation and broken heart of men and endangers their house.

[Forever May]

I disagree with all of this.

First from modern realistic perspective relationships are what people make of them. Consent is magic - if both people are genuinely happy with the arrangement, who is harmed? No one. They are still committed to each other even if not completely sexually monogamous.

From the Westerosi nobles perspective who is going to gain say the word of the king and his queens? If they both say, publiclly, this is my child and my heir, there is no one with the right to say otherwise.

By the way this happened all the time in history. You can pretend otherwise but youre not going to convince many historians that noble lineages were bastions of pure monogamy.

I wasn't saying I agreed with it. I was saying that if Aegon was shooting blanks and Rhaenys and Aegon felt they needed a child, the only answer would be a secret lover. Otherwise, it would bring shame upon their house and Aegon especially. What happened was Rhaenys was rumored to bed all sorts of singers and mummers however. So saying she only did this to mother a child is nonsense, because she was plainly doing it for wanton lust. I mean, we have to assume that she wanted people to believe the child was Aegon's and not a bastard. This is simply not what happened.

And what do I believe Aegon should've done if he was shooting blanks? Stay true to his marriage vows. Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys should've just tried to get used to the idea of not having children and prepared instead another successor for their house, perhaps a cousin or some worthy lord whom they approve of.

[Forever May]

Honestly, I can't believe how many people are so quick to defend adultery here. I never imagined the principle of simple respect for your lover had slid so far into history. I've seen what adultery does to families and it is horrible. The best cases are usually smashed computers and cars, worse cases include violence, burned down houses, even death. It isn't hard to divorce or, if that is not possible such as in Westeros, then run away from your unwanted spouse. A rich woman could've ran away to the Free Cities and lived happily with a lover of her own choosing. But just plain going and sleeping with other people... it is shameful. You need to find some way to end your relationship before you bed someone else, otherwise the blame rests entirely upon your shoulders.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

When people are married, they take each other as wife and husband. The vows go both ways. Are you suggesting you think marriage vows are unimportant or something?

Ok, I think the problem is that you are using our morals to define what marriage in Westeros is. Marriage in Westeros, and in many places of our world, even nowadays, doesn't work like that. Marriages are made to join two families, whether nobles or lowborn, to keep lands, to form alliances, or similar. Marriages are BUSINESS contracts that include properties and objects being offered and received and the sex is needed to procreate children that carry both of the families' blood, hence, make those children the rightful heirs of those families. There was nothing romantic about it, and this was the norm. The odd was to find a wife and husband who loved each other before getting married.

Considering that the wife and husband were supposed to live together until one of them die, there was the need to be in good terms: "I treat you good and you treat me good". There was no love involved but the need and understanding that it's better to have a good relationship with the person you are going to live for the rest of your life. In some cases, love was born, in others, it was only a sense of partnership that worked. There was no "vows" involved in the same way nowadays are. Wife should provide the husband with legitimate kids and husband should provide woman and children with care, food and protection. That was it.

In the case of the Targaryen, the need was to keep the blood pure, which not always worked. Considering that genetics are not a pie that you can slice in exact pieces, as soon as the blood was present, it still existed. That's why the called the dragon seeds to ride the dragons and in some cases, it worked. BBP had probably a very diluted Targ blood, but even a drop is there.

And in the very specific case of Aegon and his sisters, the main reason at first was to keep going the bloodline, which was probably expected of Visenya, his first wife. Aegon married Rhaenys for lust, and he had sex with her most than with Visenya, for whatever reason was, but we don't know the arrangements of their marriage. Maybe they both knew Aegon couldn't have children and they were ok with it. Maybe they intentionally didn't want to have children with him yet. Or maybe, they didn't want children at all and each of the girls said "well, let the other have his children". We have no evidence of wht their relationship was, except that they helped each other during the years of the conquest and the three of them (also Orys) were together on achieve it.

Of course, it was expected of Aegon to be the one carrying and continuing the blood, but it was not an exclusive task for him alone. In the remote case of Aegon dying during the conquest, his sisters were expected to carry on, I suppose, and find a husband to continue with the dynasty. Women also continue lines in Westeros and no one considers their blood "Less" than if it had been a man. There is Dorne, there is the one daughter of Argilac. And there is Rhaenyra, who gave birth two boys who were children of some X guy whose blood mattered little as long as Rhaenyra was the mother because she also carried the Targaryen blood.

Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys had the same blood. They were brother and sisters with the same badass blood. Had Aegon been born an only child, he would have need to marry some stranger. And had R or V not had a brother, they would have needed to marry some guy to carry on the line. And the result would be the same.

(I just keep calling Rhaenyra Rhaenerys... who the fuck is Rhaenerys???)

[Light a wight tonight]

Honestly, I can't believe how many people are so quick to defend adultery here.

Well Jesus didn't feel that he was too good to associate with a harlot, so why should I get all judgmental?

[Aemond's Eye]

Some people have a lot of respect for their body and do not think highly of allowing others to use their bodies for sexual gratification. I don't think this is a complicated thing. And engaging in group sex, orgies, how is this not despicable? You should explain that in some detail.

And why are you persisting about this? I am talking about adultery in this thread, not a man and his paramour at a brothel.

Explain what in some detail, exactly? That different people have different attitudes towards sex? How can I explain that something isn't despicable when you quite clearly are in a different ball park altogether in regards to your views on the subject?

Actually, you originally commented that Oberyn & Ellaria was a relationship that was all about pleasure. If Ellaria was merely the paramour that Oberyn engaged in "despicable" sexual acts with, she wouldn't have been viewed as his common law wife by his family. There was love in that relationship. Whereas marriage in Westeros, as in feudal society in our world, isn't about monogamy and love in the way you're arguing it is - it's essentially a business arrangement. Applying twenty first century morals and views on marriage to such marriages is more than a tad bit silly.

(I just keep calling Rhaenyra Rhaenerys... who the fuck is Rhaenerys???)

I have no idea, but I'm remembering that for Crusader Kings II.

[ARYa_Nym]

I highly doubt Aegon gave two shits , they were his sisters/wives she was more sexual of Aegons wives I guess while Visenya was more of a fighter. I think Aegon knew this and quite frankly he did not care. If he had Bastards I am sure Aegon treated them just has he treated Oyrs Baratheon though there is a theory that Orys is a highborn Bastard likely from the Stormland house.

Visenya was said to be passionate and a seductress and that they both competed for his attention in an SSM. Plus, physically she was voluptuous so she might have oozed sex anyways. I don't think one sister was more sexual than the other. Visenya just had a husband who didn't want her that much and later couldn't stand her.

[SeanF]

Visenya was said to be passionate and a seductress and that they both competed for his attention in an SSM. Plus, physically she was voluptuous so she might have oozed sex anyways. I don't think one sister was more sexual than the other. Visenya just had a husband who didn't want her that much and later couldn't stand her.

Visenya was clearly very strong-willed, and probably didn't mince her words about Aenys' failings, or about Aegon's decision to make peace with the Dornish.

If (as we've speculated) Rhaenys was being held in torment by the Dornish, I'm sure that Visenya's reaction would have been to inflict genocide on the Dornish.

[Salafi Stannis]

This is perhaps true. But it makes it even more shameful to break the heart of such a man. Anyway, it says he married Rhaenys for passion. I took that to imply the feeling was mutual. Seriously, don't you think the same?

A harlot has the meaning of a promiscuous woman with negative connotations, yes. It is the perfect word to describe an adulteress, a married woman who beds many other men, shaming her husband and breaking his heart. I don't see that harlot always has to mean whore. A whore might be a harlot but a harlot isn't always a whore. And I would not say that all whores are harlots anyway, because a whore is not necessarily a negative thing, only an unfortunate thing.

Now womanizer is a negative word:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/womanize

"Used to express disapproval." Ergo, it is a distasteful thing. A womanizer as I come to know the thing, it means a man who uses woman for pleasure but cares little or nothing for their character or person. Such as King Robert, if you want an example. If you think in your language that this word is a good thing, you live in a terrible culture that does not respect women. It is always a bad thing for men to use women for sex, as it shows no respect for them. The same for a woman to use a man for sex alone, it is a bad thing.

The words womanizer and harlot are thus words to describe these sorts of people. If you can suggest better words for me to use that are negative and refer to loose people, I will listen. These are the gentlest words I can think of however.

I said if someone wants to make this argument then fair enough, I consider it a valid argument. The argument I was making however, is to assume the rumors are true. I assume they are meant to be true, elsewise why put them in? This is discussed in the OP.

Some people have a lot of respect for their body and do not think highly of allowing others to use their bodies for sexual gratification. I don't think this is a complicated thing. And engaging in group sex, orgies, how is this not despicable? You should explain that in some detail.

And why are you persisting about this? I am talking about adultery in this thread, not a man and his paramour at a brothel.

Well, I agree, it is a sad fact, but men who sleep with many women are often complimented, and women who sleep with many men are often shamed for their promiscuity. Now, a womanizer as I know the term is a man who sleeps with a lot of women, which is often not seen as a bad thing, also, men and women use each other for sex all the time, it's called "a one night stand" if it's a one time thing or "friends with benefits" if it's an ongoing arrangement. You're saying that it is imperative that two people are in a committed romantic relationship before having sex, which is fine, but also that women who cheat ought to be shamed by being called harlots, which does actually mean whore, which isn't.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

snip

No what you are calling an assumption, and using to imply I don't think marriage vows go both ways, or are important. Was in fact just me humorously pointing out that you said aegon was Rhaenys wife, wife being the word which refers to the female member of a marriage. It was just a little jape. as was pointing out you said she ushered the vows and then describing a comical Disney movie moment with singing dancing "vows" skipping around being ushered by Rhaenys. When I am certain you meant to say uttered.

I am not assuming she was forced, I am pointing out the possibility, and given that almost every other marriage in the books is an arranged marriage I think it's a distinct possibility. Women do not choose who they marry in this world. it is as has been pointed out by others more a business arrangement than one of love. We are told Aegon took Visenya for duty and Rhaenys for desire. It does NOT say the desire was returned. You are assuming it was. but there is no evidence in the wording to imply either way. We can't rule out either. But I'd say that before condemning her, one ought to take into consideration the very real possibility that she didn't love him in that way.

I have a problem with the argument, because you are seeing in black and white. You think the only thing which matters is the marriage vows and her fidelity, and Aegon's pride. What I feel matters is mutual consent, love, desire,the human need to act upon mutual sexual attraction and the fact that any child of Rhaenys carries the blood of the Dragon no matter who the daddy is.

In our modern view, you marry a person whom you love, and whom you want to make promises to, the promise to be faithful isn't broken IMO if then say the couple agree to sex outside the marriage. I have friends who have a marriage but the wife is poly and he is consenting in her having sex outside the marriage, I have another married couple as friends who are into swinging. I know a same sex couple where one party is Bi and every now and again goes and has sex with a man, with her partners consent. These are all as valid as marriages as my own hetro-normative marriage IMO.

All we have to go on is the facts

• Aegon desired Rhaenys and took her to wife for this reason

Rhaenys is rumoured to have taken lovers

We need to put these facts into the context of the world in which the story takes place. It is a deeply patriarchal world, marriages are brokered by men, and the women have very little say in who they wed. Aenys was not very like Aegon, and had traits which this warfare based society did not value. We can assume women are inevitably blamed for all perceived failings in a child as it reflects our own history in this sense. Rhaenys was gregarious, flirtatious & vibrant in a world which demanded women be seen and not heard. This would lead to scandal in itself, and rumours of her "wanton behaviour " seem almost inevitable. Later Visenya's son wanted to take the throne and what better way to do so than to put about that Aenys was a bastard. It makes perfect sense, in fact it would be absolutely stupid to launch a campaign to usurp the throne and NOT put it out that your rival is not really the son of the former King.

For what it's worth I don't believe the rumours. I don't think she had multiple lovers etc. But I do wonder if Aenys was conceived via "sperm donor" if as it seems was likely, Aegon was infertile. This does not IMO constitute cheating in the slightest.

[Dofs]

Well Jesus didn't feel that he was too good to associate with a harlot, so why should I get all judgmental?

Just saying, but she was probably not a harlot :read:

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Yea but she as an unmarried woman woman who hung out with a bunch of guys, she must have been a right slapper. Right??

[Forever May]

No what you are calling an assumption, and using to imply I don't think marriage vows go both ways, or are important. Was in fact just me humorously pointing out that you said aegon was Rhaenys wife, wife being the word which refers to the female member of a marriage. It was just a little jape. as was pointing out you said she ushered the vows and then describing a comical Disney movie moment with singing dancing "vows" skipping around being ushered by Rhaenys. When I am certain you meant to say uttered.

No, I meant to say usher. Go to the dictionary link, cite 6 and 7.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/usher

I mean usher as in declaring the beginning of something very important, life affecting, like a new season, a new era, a new life as a wife. Maybe I should use simpler terminology though.

I am not assuming she was forced, I am pointing out the possibility, and given that almost every other marriage in the books is an arranged marriage I think it's a distinct possibility. Women do not choose who they marry in this world. it is as has been pointed out by others more a business arrangement than one of love. We are told Aegon took Visenya for duty and Rhaenys for desire. It does NOT say the desire was returned. You are assuming it was. but there is no evidence in the wording to imply either way. We can't rule out either. But I'd say that before condemning her, one ought to take into consideration the very real possibility that she didn't love him in that way.

I honestly think it is safe to assume the desire spoken of was mutual. I mean, are you really making this argument?

In any case, there seems little possibility Rhaenys was forced into wedding and there is certainly no evidence suggesting this in the text. Can you please stop to consider what type of person Rhaenys was. She flew into battle on the back of a dragon, how many men do you think she killed? Maybe 1,000? Maybe 10,000? Even if it was only a few hundred, it is no small number. And whilst fighting from dragonback does not take a man's prowess, it does take great courage to go into any situation where arrows, crossbow and scorpion bolts are aimed at your face. So Rhaenys was a warrior. She was also a commander. She was also a diplomat sent to treat with Dorne. She even died in battle in Dorne, probably (or mayhaps she did indeed run away after all?) The point is, this is not some feeble woman trembling at her husbands feet after he forced her to wed then dragged her to bed. This is one of the most powerful women in the world both at her time and ever since. Are you really trying to tell me Rhaenys who brought half of Westeros to their knees was being oppressed? You make a poor argument, Tree Eyes.

the fact that any child of Rhaenys carries the blood of the Dragon no matter who the daddy is.

Tell this to the high lords. If you are trying to seat a bastard son of a bard on a throne above ancient pedigree lineages that stretch back to the dawn of time, it is an insult. How hard is this to understand? Heirs have to be highborn, born in wedlock, and this is the basis for the right to rule.

I have a problem with the argument, because you are seeing in black and white. You think the only thing which matters is the marriage vows and her fidelity, and Aegon's pride. What I feel matters is mutual consent, love, desire,the human need to act upon mutual sexual attraction

Yes, but you're doing the same when considering adultery. I have the impression you are trying to say adultery may be acceptable in the case where a woman is unsatisfied with her husband, or has a strong desire to seek love elsewhere, or such. That's the whole point. Is there a case of adultery that wasn't sparked by sexual dissatisfaction or a feeling of lust or longing that wasn't being fulfilled by the spouse? No, there isn't.

All adulterers have their reasons, that doesn't make it acceptable. If they are good people, before cheating on their spouse, they will find a way out of their marriage and end their relationship. One way or the other.

I don't think she had multiple lovers etc. But I do wonder if Aenys was conceived via "sperm donor" if as it seems was likely, Aegon was infertile. This does not IMO constitute cheating in the slightest.

I agree this does not constitute cheating so long as Aegon knew and consented. It is still a scandal though and if the world found out then it would mean rebellion. And who could tell them they didn't have a wright to rebel? Such scandals are dark by nature and good people should avoid them. If Aegon was infertile, he honestly should have thought of what that might've meant before trying to establish a dynasty...

[Forever May]

Well, we agree there, it is a sad fact, but men who sleep with many women are often complimented, and women who sleep with many men are often shamed for their promiscuity. Now, a womanizer as I know the term is a man who sleeps with a lot of women, which is not a bad thing, neither is a woman sleeping with many men a bad thing either. There's nothing wrong with men and women using each other for sex, as long as the feeling is mutual. They call this a "one night stand" if it's a one time thing or "friends with benefits" if it's an ongoing arrangement. You seem to believe that it is imperative that two people are in a committed romantic relationship before having sex, and that women who cheat ought to be shamed by being called harlots, which does actually mean whore, neither of which I agree with.

The problem is, there is little respect involved for casual sex. Women often end up being humiliated by it. Men who sleep with women outside of proper relationship often laugh about it publicly, boasting how wet they were down there or something to all their friends and anyone who will listen. It doesn't matter what your original intention was or what you were truly doing, society judges. If you want people to respect you, then you have to treat your body like a purse of diamonds and not a village bicycle (sorry, that is a horrible analogy but it makes the point).

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Wasn't Rhaenys the one who kinda shouted "All Hail Aegon, titles titles" when he was crowned? I suppose she supported her brother, so, no reason or motivation to cheat on him.

[Forever May]

Ok, I think the problem is that you are using our morals to define what marriage in Westeros is. Marriage in Westeros, and in many places of our world, even nowadays, doesn't work like that. Marriages are made to join two families, whether nobles or lowborn, to keep lands, to form alliances, or similar. Marriages are BUSINESS contracts that include properties and objects being offered and received and the sex is needed to procreate children that carry both of the families' blood, hence, make those children the rightful heirs of those families. There was nothing romantic about it, and this was the norm. The odd was to find a wife and husband who loved each other before getting married.

Considering that the wife and husband were supposed to live together until one of them die, there was the need to be in good terms: "I treat you good and you treat me good". There was no love involved but the need and understanding that it's better to have a good relationship with the person you are going to live for the rest of your life. In some cases, love was born, in others, it was only a sense of partnership that worked. There was no "vows" involved in the same way nowadays are. Wife should provide the husband with legitimate kids and husband should provide woman and children with care, food and protection. That was it.

In the case of the Targaryen, the need was to keep the blood pure, which not always worked. Considering that genetics are not a pie that you can slice in exact pieces, as soon as the blood was present, it still existed. That's why the called the dragon seeds to ride the dragons and in some cases, it worked. BBP had probably a very diluted Targ blood, but even a drop is there.

And in the very specific case of Aegon and his sisters, the main reason at first was to keep going the bloodline, which was probably expected of Visenya, his first wife. Aegon married Rhaenys for lust, and he had sex with her most than with Visenya, for whatever reason was, but we don't know the arrangements of their marriage. Maybe they both knew Aegon couldn't have children and they were ok with it. Maybe they intentionally didn't want to have children with him yet. Or maybe, they didn't want children at all and each of the girls said "well, let the other have his children". We have no evidence of wht their relationship was, except that they helped each other during the years of the conquest and the three of them (also Orys) were together on achieve it.

Of course, it was expected of Aegon to be the one carrying and continuing the blood, but it was not an exclusive task for him alone. In the remote case of Aegon dying during the conquest, his sisters were expected to carry on, I suppose, and find a husband to continue with the dynasty. Women also continue lines in Westeros and no one considers their blood "Less" than if it had been a man. There is Dorne, there is the one daughter of Argilac. And there is Rhaenyra, who gave birth two boys who were children of some X guy whose blood mattered little as long as Rhaenyra was the mother because she also carried the Targaryen blood.

Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys had the same blood. They were brother and sisters with the same badass blood. Had Aegon been born an only child, he would have need to marry some stranger. And had R or V not had a brother, they would have needed to marry some guy to carry on the line. And the result would be the same.

(I just keep calling Rhaenyra Rhaenerys... who the fuck is Rhaenerys???)

This is complete nonsense. Yes marriage is for bloodlines, all the more reason why women cannot sleep around, mother a bastard and confuse the entire process. Are you forgetting why the War of Five Kings started? Ned died because he learned of bastardry, which brought the North to war. Stannis went to war because he learned of bastardry. And it is safe to assume that Littlefinger had Jon Arryn poisoned to keep the bastardry secret for a little while, or something, I don't know, but bastardry was involved. Not to mention the fact that Bran was pushed because he saw how a bastard was made.

Gods you can't just put a bard's bastard on the throne and call it highborn and expect the realm to kneel. Where do you people get these ideas?

[teemo]

Anyone else think OP is trolling? It's a good troll though, gotta give them that...

[JonCon's Red Beard]

This is complete nonsense. Yes marriage is for bloodlines, all the more reason why women cannot sleep around, mother a bastard and confuse the entire process. Are you forgetting why the War of Five Kings started? Ned died because he learned of bastardry, which brought the North to war. Stannis went to war because he learned of bastardry. And it is safe to assume that Littlefinger had Jon Arryn poisoned to keep the bastardry secret for a little while, or something, I don't know, but bastardry was involved.

Gods you can't just put a bard's bastard on the throne and call it highborn and expect the realm to kneel. Where do you people get these ideas?

But we're talking about Cersei and Cersei alone, who hated her husband and purposely wanted to put a bastard of hers on the throne. And she expected exactly that: put a bastard on the throne and expect the realm to kneel. Where did she get that idea?

Medieval marriages are business. And for those business to happen, people need to do their part. Wives (mostly of them) wouldn't go and claim bastards are their husbands' because it would nullify their contracts. Besides, what purpose would it serve? Cersei did it out of spite. Other woman had no reason to do the same. But not because of love, but because it's what it's expected.

And I think Rhaenys is a case of what happened Marie-Antoinette. For years it has been believed that she and Fersen were lovers, and he's thought to be the father of one of her children because such child didn't look like the King. But the reality is that there is no evidence that supports that claim, and now that MA is seen under a different light (and not the harlot who broke France's finances and cause the Revolution herself), many of her biographers agree that their relationship was platonic. Also, as a Queen, she was ALWAYS surrounded by people and at least one of them could have been able to see her with Fersen or any other guy. She was not seen with other men and she really cared for her husband.

Look at how the rumour is told: Rhaenys entertained lovers while Aegon was with Visenya. So, she "escaped" away with other men while her brother and sister were together. It's made to sound as though she couldn't get enough, or she was somehow sour by Aegon being with Visenya and she hurt him in purpose while he was with his other wife. She was his favourite, that's definitely not true.

[C.T. Phipps]

I don't think the plot of A Song of Ice and Fire is so far detached from reality that we should not care about it. The entire war being fought is based on whom has the legitimate right to the Iron Throne, so it does matter. Moreover, adultery is a very real thing that almost all of us have to witness at some stage in one way or another. And I have a hard time seriously believing everyone who is against me actually has no problem with them or their lover sleeping around, 'coz that's just wot we do nowdays. It is a damn heartbreaking thing to have done to you, that cannot be denied.

Alan Moore's Watchmen ushered in the Dark Age of Superheroes with Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns by taking a magnifying glass to the sacred cows of superherodom. What both realized and wrote about was the world which would support such things would have to be quite insane. This is relevant because A Song of Ice and Fire is to the fantasy genre what those two comics are to superhero fiction.

One of the key things George R.R. Martin has drilled home is the fact monarchy, historically, and in any plausible society is not going to be the Return of the King. The historical monarchies of the world are seedy dysfunctional family relationships full of adultery, murder, and theft. It's why I have always enjoyed writing about the Bible because people put on their blinders to see said book is a deeply-deeply messed up one with history full of sex, murder, and intrigue.

Look at King David!

Part of what I like about the whole WOASOI&F is that it exposes the houses as being one long collection of disturbing incidents and family drama. Aegon and his sister-wives are a trio of badasses, geniuses, and conquerors who are legendary figures for a reason. However, bringing up the fact Aegon may have been sterile, a cuckhold, not at all the man in charge of his family, and directed by a proto-feminist wife (which is a good thing given the benefits it brought women in Westeros) makes the characters more authentic.

There's definitely a double standard going here as a lot of people have reacted to Laenor and Rhaenyra with horror rather than approval. This, despite the fact Laenor clearly has the best possible wife he could have for being supportive of his homosexuality as well as understanding of his position while Rhaenyra has a husband who is the exact same for her strong heterosexuality. It seems one of the happiest relationships in Westeros, much like the show Margaery and Renly would have been, but sexist attitudes make her a harlot rather than a woman making the best of a bad situation with a man doing the same.

Rhaenys may well have been entertaining multiple men and Aegon the Conqueror very likely didn't care as long as her bed was available for him. Certainly, none of this seems to have been a secret and there's no sign he was unobservant about his house. She's also a woman who was badass in her own way despite being the Girly-Girl of the pair. She was a Girly-Girl who was the most badass dragonrider who ever lived.

I think it's unsettling to see people internalizing Westeros morality when the text repeatedly goes out of its way to highlight how stupid and often outright evil it is.

Asha Greyjoy's reaction to being asked if she was raped when it was found out she wasn't a virgin summarizes my opinion of Westeros sexual morals.

Dismay mixed with disbelief.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Anyone else think OP is trolling? It's a good troll though, gotta give them that...

At this point I am really inclined to agree.

I don't feed trolls so I'll be stepping away from the thread.