Why do people keep exaggerating about the sex\nudity and violence?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

12 hours ago, Humble AK said:

If you say so. I need to re-read Lolita with this new understanding, that Humbert Humbert is not really a rapist because Dolores is a fictional character and so behaviors like rape mean something beyond rape. It's a metaphor or some such. I suppose this only applies to literature and not television shows? Or if it does, your mastery of how these metaphors should be understood will indicate a very specific interpretation of what rape means in one presentation vs. what it means in another?

I don't think I can agree with you, but I certainly don't want to change your mind, because that's a pretty awesome way of seeing things.

Seriously?

Do you think Nabokov wanted you to think HH was not an abuser here?

Yet, that abuse meant something. That's the point. HH's actions are bad, yet, what he does and what the story portraits is a symbol for obsession and power. HH believes to be the one handling the whole thing, but it's Lolita the one in power, even though she's the abuser: she controls HH both knowingly and unknowingly.

This doesn't absolve HH from his sins and crimes nor removes Lolita's status of victim. Yet, the author uses a situation of obvious abuse in order to portray a situation: "who is really in control here?". Not the one you think. The author allows the abuse of Lolita (who doesn't exist), to prove a point.

Also, Lolita ended up inspiring a whole movement: lolicon. I suppose every other japanese that is on this is a rape apologist or a secret pedophile?

 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

This is an excellent analysis of the whole thing. It provides examples and statistics from many diverse non-western societies to understand what Martin wanted to say and how he portrayed different points of views about this.

http://www.thegoktor.com/did-khal-drogo-rape-daenerys-targaryen/

 

[Good Guy Garlan]

5 hours ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

What? I thought the context of ASOIAF was 2016.

Sure, Martin used a time machine to go back to the Middle Ages and write these books there. He's also not a Western author writing from the perspective of Western values. 

It's not like he has a character we as an audience are meant to sympathize with - Jaime - actually condemning marital rape regarding Aerys and Rhaella. It's not like he portrays Cersei as a victim of marital rape too. 

/sarcasm

This pretty much blows the "but it's a different society!" argument out of the water. I mean, the author is clearly critical of marital rape, that's an obvious posture of his. 

Also, this book wasn't written in a vacuum in Saxon Britain. This is NOT a historical document and shouldn't be analyzed as such. This is a book written in 1996 by a guy born in New Jersey. It CANNOT be judged as you judge actual historical writings from the Middle Ages or Saxon Britain or whatever. Neither can it be seen as a product of anything other than Western values, as Martin is a Western writer.

And it's rich that the link you provided completely ignores the passage I quoted, probably because it's literally impossible to argue that it isn't rape, but you people just keep trying. This is so disturbing to me right now. 

 

 

[Good Guy Garlan]

Plus, we've been over this. Even if Drogo doesn't know what he's doing, even if the Dothraki don't conceive of rape as we know it, it still doesn't mean it's not rape. It may not be rape for Drogo, but it sure as hell is for Dany. Again, LOOK at the passage: she feels abused, she's in pain, she's suffering, she's crying, hurting, she has no control over what's been done to her. That. Is. Rape. 

Arguing ignorance or cultural differences is futile and, frankly, disturbing. Women and girls are raped around the world as we speak by patriarchal societies that do not acknowledge rape. And yet it is rape. That's like justifying a drunk man raping a woman because he wasn't in full control of his capabilities and didn't know what he was doing. Like Drogo. It is still rape. It may not be rape for the perpetrator, but it is rape for the victim. This is rape apologism in its purest form, and I'm still waiting for the explanation of why the passage I quoted isn't rape. 

 

[Humble AK]

10 hours ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

Seriously?

Do you think Nabokov wanted you to think HH was not an abuser here?

Yet, that abuse meant something. That's the point. HH's actions are bad, yet, what he does and what the story portraits is a symbol for obsession and power. HH believes to be the one handling the whole thing, but it's Lolita the one in power, even though she's the abuser: she controls HH both knowingly and unknowingly.

This doesn't absolve HH from his sins and crimes nor removes Lolita's status of victim. Yet, the author uses a situation of obvious abuse in order to portray a situation: "who is really in control here?". Not the one you think. The author allows the abuse of Lolita (who doesn't exist), to prove a point.

 

Hahaha, I see. So it is a case of you having a certain mastery of how these things should be interpreted. You may be about to modestly protest: "I do not claim any genius for myself, I merely observe what is obviously the truth". But you shouldn't be modest. Clearly it is not so obvious to everyone how these things should be interpreted, and that you can, with such ease, penetrate to the absolute, objective truth of these matters is a very special talent, one that bespeaks of a mind that is considerably developed. Do literature professors often consult you over how Joyce and Becket and the like should be understood? I imagine you are in very high demand, since one cannot debate with one who holds a monopoly of all of literature's true meaning.

Quote

Also, Lolita ended up inspiring a whole movement: lolicon. I suppose every other japanese that is on this is a rape apologist or a secret pedophile?

Considering that lolicon literally means a complex for lolitas - that is, prepubescent or recently pubescent girls - I wouldn't say there's any thing secret about the pedophilic leaning there, it's rather forthright about it. It's sexualizing little girls, pure and simple, and yes, I do find it disturbing. I love the Japanese language, but Japan society, and some of the stuff they produce, can be pretty fucked up. And I feel very comfortable making that broad statement, having lived there for some time.

 

Quote

This is an excellent analysis of the whole thing. It provides examples and statistics from many diverse non-western societies to understand what Martin wanted to say and how he portrayed different points of views about this.

I'm not sure why you would use that link to support your argument, since that's basically regurgitating what you've already claimed (or vice versa, perhaps). Others on this thread have previously stated that they aren't swayed by the different cultures validates repulsive behavior argument. I still say the European colonists were dicks to give Native Americans blankets with smallpox, even though the culture of those colonists was inclined to the belief of manifest destiny and European superiority, and thus endorsed such behavior.

[The Arthur Smith]

14 hours ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

Yet, that abuse meant something. That's the point. HH's actions are bad, yet, what he does and what the story portraits is a symbol for obsession and power. HH believes to be the one handling the whole thing, but it's Lolita the one in power, even though she's the abuser: she controls HH both knowingly and unknowingly.

 

I have no words to describe this statement and poor excuse...

 

[Wall Flower]

3 hours ago, The Arthur Smith said:

I have no words to describe this statement and poor excuse...

 

You and me both. HH is a paedophile projecting his own desires and inability to control them onto the child that he has pursued, groomed, taken guardianship of, abused and drugged for sex. It's all too common for the paedophile to see the child as seductive (and I guess having power over them) but that doesn't make it so.

[The Arthur Smith]

20 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

You and me both. HH is a paedophile projecting his own desires and inability to control them onto the child that he has pursued, groomed, taken guardianship of, abused and drugged for sex. It's all too common for the paedophile to see the child as seductive (and I guess having power over them) but that doesn't make it so.

Furthermore and very importantly, Nabokov portrayed HH very accurately as to those typical of perpetrator who would blame their victim as fault for their own lust and desire, which in reality is simply pure nonsense coming from an abusive pedophile who is willing to chooses to commit crime on their prey. Keep in mind, the novel was narrated from HH's POV, so of course there's going to be some unreliable narration and BS from HH as similarly you would expect from POV characters in Asoiaf. But hey, HH attempting to make himself sympathetic by making excuses for his action actually work among some of the readers... 


 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

And where I'm saying he's not?

Nowhere. If you can find where I excuse HH from his actions, I'll give you a million dollars.

What a black and white mentality people have, for god's sake. Also, the lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.

[TepidHands]

1 hour ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

And where I'm saying he's not?

Nowhere. If you can find where I excuse HH from his actions, I'll give you a million dollars.

What a black and white mentality people have, for god's sake. Also, the lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.

Well the whole thread starts out with a misconception. No one's exaggerated the amount of sex and violence (Hells, I was the one who posted that only 37 minutes or so of the first five seasons has been nudity/sex content according to Huffington Post). It's just most of it is so awful and joyless and artless. The violence is similarly poorly done. But when it comes to showing Stannis actually dying, it would be "gratuitous," according to the powers. 

[JonCon's Red Beard]

2 hours ago, TepidHands said:

Well the whole thread starts out with a misconception. No one's exaggerated the amount of sex and violence (Hells, I was the one who posted that only 37 minutes or so of the first five seasons has been nudity/sex content according to Huffington Post). It's just most of it is so awful and joyless and artless. The violence is similarly poorly done. But when it comes to showing Stannis actually dying, it would be "gratuitous," according to the powers. 

That's why I posted what I wrote before. There is no sex or anything in GoT, only women around being paraded naked and women being raped on the background.

In LITERATURE, and in LITERATURE ONLY, sex, and even sexual violence, can be used by the author as a motif or as a symbol for anything he want to express: freedom, rebellion, etc.

NOT IN REAL LIFE. THERE IS NO EXCUSES OR EXPLANATIONS IN REAL LIFE.

So, this whole "you're explaining a rape, you're a rape apologist" needs to stop. It's insulting. Specially because it's directly insulting a genre that the majority of women willingly enjoy and labelling as "rape". 

And indirectly, it's insulting Martin. Like Martin or not, but he's not a "rape apologist".

Game of Thrones the show, otoh, simply portrays rape for the sake of it. It has no meaning, no purpose, no literary symbolism. Nothing. It's just "hey! watchers will shit themselves if we rape Sansa!!".

[Nevets]

A few comments on the sex and violence in the show vs. the books.  btw, I have only seen seasons 1-4

What I could have done without - Theon's torture.  There was way too much of this.  If I have to see sadistic violence, I prefer it in small doses.  I watched the show on DVD, and I had to fast-forward through that. A little of this goes a long way.  A lot becomes simply unwatchable.

What I'm glad they didn't show - Rape of the Lazareen village.  I recently re-read this and it was seriously unpleasant reading.  A faithful rendition of it would have been probably even worse than Theon's torture, so I'm glad they sanitized it.  Not that it isn't pretty bad on TV, but the book was way worse.  Although if they had shown it, I would have at least respected the fact that it came from the books, and not from the fevered imagination of D&D.

What I dish they had shown but didn't - Arya's story in ACOK.  Her story in ACOK is filled with violence, but it is mostly ignored.  They did the torture of the villagers, but not well, imo. After that, nothing.  No rapes and murders of civilians, including small children   No beatings, no threats, or even an atmosphere of fear.  The violence she experienced and witnessed in and near Harrenhal was a formative part of her character, but all we get is Jaqen's three wishes deaths and "Dinners with Grandpa Tywin".

Also, while I understand the need to truncate the BwB story, I miss Arya at Stoney Sept, with the crow cages and the visit to the Peach.  A brothel scene in the book but not in the show.  Imagine that!

As for nudity, I think they show too much that is gratuitous and excessive.  As I mentioned above about torture, a little bit of nudity goes a long way.  A lot merely becomes boring, annoying background noise

[El Guapo]

4 minutes ago, Nevets said:

A few comments on the sex and violence in the show vs. the books.  btw, I have only seen seasons 1-4

What I could have done without - Theon's torture.  There was way too much of this.  If I have to see sadistic violence, I prefer it in small doses.  I watched the show on DVD, and I had to fast-forward through that. A little of this goes a long way.  A lot becomes simply unwatchable.

What I'm glad they didn't show - Rape of the Lazareen village.  I recently re-read this and it was seriously unpleasant reading.  A faithful rendition of it would have been probably even worse than Theon's torture, so I'm glad they sanitized it.  Not that it isn't pretty bad on TV, but the book was way worse.  Although if they had shown it, I would have at least respected the fact that it came from the books, and not from the fevered imagination of D&D.

What I dish they had shown but didn't - Arya's story in ACOK.  Her story in ACOK is filled with violence, but it is mostly ignored.  They did the torture of the villagers, but not well, imo. After that, nothing.  No rapes and murders of civilians, including small children   No beatings, no threats, or even an atmosphere of fear.  The violence she experienced and witnessed in and near Harrenhal was a formative part of her character, but all we get is Jaqen's three wishes deaths and "Dinners with Grandpa Tywin".

Also, while I understand the need to truncate the BwB story, I miss Arya at Stoney Sept, with the crow cages and the visit to the Peach.  A brothel scene in the book but not in the show.  Imagine that!

As for nudity, I think they show too much that is gratuitous and excessive.  As I mentioned above about torture, a little bit of nudity goes a long way.  A lot merely becomes boring, annoying background noise

I see. So when George writes rape and violence it something to be respected because reasons. When D&D do it is because they are a couple of sickos I guess.  Good to know.

 

[Nevets]

10 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I see. So when George writes rape and violence it something to be respected because reasons. When D&D do it is because they are a couple of sickos I guess.  Good to know.

 

D&D are adapting a work of fiction originally written by George.  As such, I would expect to see mostly material from the book with excisions and additions as necessary for the adaptation.  This has not been the case, especially in recent seasons.  As for the scene in question, it is one of my least favorite scenes in the books, but as part of the books, if it were to wind up in the adaptation, so be it. 

[Humble AK]

34 minutes ago, Nevets said:

D&D are adapting a work of fiction originally written by George.  As such, I would expect to see mostly material from the book with excisions and additions as necessary for the adaptation.  This has not been the case, especially in recent seasons.  As for the scene in question, it is one of my least favorite scenes in the books, but as part of the books, if it were to wind up in the adaptation, so be it. 

The point being that one's estimation of whether there's value in the portrayal of certain content in a graphic manner is just that: one's own estimation. You'll notice that there's a wide variety of opinions in this thread alone on whether such content has merit in the books, whether that merit was rendered with the same value (or maybe improved value, or degraded value) by adapting the content into visual format, or whether the content is simply gratuitous in the books and best left out, or whether show only content has value or is gratuitous, etc.

As far as I've seen, no one's given some solid, physical proof that their opinion on the issue is anything more than an opinion. This is even more difficult to discern as you'll find people disagree on the nature of the content itself (for an example, see the recent discussion where a select few were arguing that Dany wasn't really raped by Drogo, which is something that to me is about as obvious a rape as you can get; for another example, see people who try to claim that Jaime didn't rape Cersei, and that Sansa wasn't raped on the show, where apparently there too people have disputed the nature of those scenes).

Clearly there are a lot of passionate people who are so convinced of their opinion that they no longer believe that it's an opinion, they believe it's fact. They give quotes from the book and then lecture other readers on how they should interpret those scenes, and then describe an equivalent scene in the show and lecture the viewers how that should be interpreted, and then act as though they've proven something.

 

[Good Guy Garlan]

 

1 hour ago, JonCon's Red Beard said:

That's why I posted what I wrote before. There is no sex or anything in GoT, only women around being paraded naked and women being raped on the background.

In LITERATURE, and in LITERATURE ONLY, sex, and even sexual violence, can be used by the author as a motif or as a symbol for anything he want to express: freedom, rebellion, etc.

NOT IN REAL LIFE. THERE IS NO EXCUSES OR EXPLANATIONS IN REAL LIFE.

So, this whole "you're explaining a rape, you're a rape apologist" needs to stop. It's insulting. Specially because it's directly insulting a genre that the majority of women willingly enjoy and labelling as "rape". 

And indirectly, it's insulting Martin. Like Martin or not, but he's not a "rape apologist".

Game of Thrones the show, otoh, simply portrays rape for the sake of it. It has no meaning, no purpose, no literary symbolism. Nothing. It's just "hey! watchers will shit themselves if we rape Sansa!!".

You just keep missing the point: on the one hand, you keep denying it was sexual abuse, but on the other you are saying, and I quote, that "even sexual violence, can be used by the author as a motif or as a symbol for anything he want to express: freedom, rebellion, etc." So, which one is it? Is the passage I quoted sexual abuse, are you FINALLY admitting it? Or it isn't? Do you wanna discuss how Martin tried to convey a certain motif or symbol by depicting a situation of sexual abuse? Or are you denying said sexual abuse ever happened in the first place? Because so far it's been a whole lot of denial. 

I guess my most immediate concern and what has disturbed me and others so much about all this discussion is not so much the excusing or justifying the sexual abuse in question (though of course that's troubling considering this particular case), but rather the flat out denial of it. 

That's what's insulting. 

So I ask for like the fifth time because I still haven't got an answer: how can the passage I quoted can be interpreted as being anything other than rape?

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

I see. So when George writes rape and violence it something to be respected because reasons. When D&D do it is because they are a couple of sickos I guess.  Good to know.

That's what JonCon is saying, pretty much. That in literature and only in literature (guess all other art forms, including cinema and audiovisual productions suddenly stopped existing) rape can be justified. As if people didn't have the right to be offended or enraged by a piece of literature. As if literature wasn't the carrier of dangerous ideology. As if literature and real life weren't closely intertwined as shown time after time since the dawn of humanity. So no, the "it's only fiction, jeez!" excuse doesn't work here. The characters may be fictional but the issue of rape is as real as you and me, and the way an author depicts it speaks volumes. As much as you'd like it, JonCon, Martin is NOT above criticism, not by a long shot. Literature isn't above criticism, that's absolutely ridiculous. 

52 minutes ago, Nevets said:

D&D are adapting a work of fiction originally written by George.  As such, I would expect to see mostly material from the book with excisions and additions as necessary for the adaptation.  This has not been the case, especially in recent seasons.  As for the scene in question, it is one of my least favorite scenes in the books, but as part of the books, if it were to wind up in the adaptation, so be it. 

You're basically saying you'd accept all kinds of horrible and terrible shit coming from Martin, but absolutely nothing coming from D&D? Dany getting raped is perfectly fine with you because it happened in the books, but Sansa getting raped is where you draw the line because it didn't come from Martin's fevered imagination? Merriam Webster should put your posts under the definition of "double standard".

It's one thing to say, "The books have enough rape as it is, so fuck the show for adding even more", but another to say, "I only accept the raping of young women as written by George RR. Martin, thank you very much"

[kissdbyfire]

I must have missed @JonCon's Red Beard's point because I thought she said, several posts ago, that Dany's wedding night hadn't been rape, something I and many others agree with. Then, many posts later, she made a great post about authors in general being able to use sexual violence for whatever reason. Two completely independent and separate points. 

[Humble AK]

14 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

 

You just keep missing the point: on the one hand, you keep denying it was sexual abuse, but on the other you are saying, and I quote, that "even sexual violence, can be used by the author as a motif or as a symbol for anything he want to express: freedom, rebellion, etc." So, which one is it? Is the passage I quoted sexual abuse, are you FINALLY admitting it? Or it isn't? Do you wanna discuss how Martin tried to convey a certain motif or symbol by depicting a situation of sexual abuse? Or are you denying said sexual abuse ever happened in the first place? Because so far it's been a whole lot of denial. 

 

I think Jon Con was trying to say that Dany's sequence wasn't sexual violence, but that sexual violence, when used by George RR Martin, is meaningful...because Jon Con believes it is, I guess. Like kissdbyfire says.

 

Quote

You're basically saying you'd accept all kinds of horrible and terrible shit coming from Martin, but absolutely nothing coming from D&D? Dany getting raped is perfectly fine with you because it happened in the books, but Sansa getting raped is where you draw the line because it didn't come from Martin's fevered imagination?

Yes, that's what they are saying. They've explicitly stated in many instances "because it was in the books" as an axiomatic justification.

[sweetsunray]

As a Belgian exposed to plenty of European material I'm used to seeing both male and female nude in series and movies since ever I remember (even as a child). I don't have any issue with a boob, bush, butt or penis shown. Not in the real world, not on screen. Nudity is normal for me. But I have to say... as long as it's shown as normal in the right context. People making love to each other with bras on and a blanket up to their chin, and men getting out of bed wrapped in a sheet while only their lover (with whom they just had sex) is in the room is absurd. The problem though in aGoT is that the nudity and sex shown in aGoT is almost always in sexploitation context: sex workers or rape. And in the few love making situations we actually do get it was either turned into a rape in the show, OR the guy if fully clothed. I wouldn't mind some of the sex work or rape depicted as being part of the world and life (and it still is) if it was done with consideration and balanced off with the more natural nudity, rather than cheap sexposition and flashing a boob or butt to make the quota.

[Humble AK]

47 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

As a Belgian exposed to plenty of European material I'm used to seeing both male and female nude in series and movies since ever I remember (even as a child). I don't have any issue with a boob, bush, butt or penis shown. Not in the real world, not on screen. Nudity is normal for me. But I have to say... as long as it's shown as normal in the right context. People making love to each other with bras on and a blanket up to their chin, and men getting out of bed wrapped in a sheet while only their lover (with whom they just had sex) is in the room is absurd. The problem though in aGoT is that the nudity and sex shown in aGoT is almost always in sexploitation context: sex workers or rape. And in the few love making situations we actually do get it was either turned into a rape in the show, OR the guy if fully clothed. I wouldn't mind some of the sex work or rape depicted as being part of the world and life (and it still is) if it was done with consideration and balanced off with the more natural nudity, rather than cheap sexposition and flashing a boob or butt to make the quota.

I do think the showrunners are at a cross purpose there. They undoubtedly use sex repeatedly for titillation, but also use it to represent the unpleasantness of the world of Westeros. So I suppose it's easy for a non-critical viewer to make the leap that since sex is used for titillation in the show sometimes, it must be used for titillation all the time. And further, the show has developed a reputation for shocking content, so it's also not unreasonable for someone to say, if content is used to shock in the show sometimes, then when content is shocking it must always have been put in there, at least partially, for the explicit purpose of shocking. And that's a fair take to have. The showrunners chose when making this show to tread a path in which it is very easy to offend people, so it shouldn't be surprising when people are offended.

I think the same can be said of the books too. I seriously doubt GRRM was not motivated in some part to be shocking. And there are plenty who accuse him too of being only popular as a shock-mongerer who panders exploitative material, and it's a fair position to have, because one can always analyze and deconstruct and wonder whether something really needed to have that content to express the same idea, or to provoke the desired reaction.

For my part, I find the content in neither the book nor the show shocking nor gratuitous. I don't need affectionate love-making in the shows I watch in order for me to consider the rest of it non-exploitative.That's usually a detraction - I hate sappy romance in shows. When it's youself and another person, you can enjoy the experience, but watching fictional characters go through it makes my bowels want to heave.