Down with the Free Folk

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

How is this any different in the 7k? A woman gets married off to a man of her father's/brothers/next male kins choosing & if said man rapes her then what? They won't even call it rape because it's her responsibility to do her "duties" as a wife. Neither situation is good. They are both bad. At the very least though, a wildling woman is allowed to leave if she can. A woman in the rest of the kingdom that escaped her husband would most often be sent back to him by any Lord that found her. 

Alright let's break this down.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

A woman gets married off to a man of her father's/brothers/next male kins choosing

From what we know arranged marriages in the seven kingdoms seem to only happen in the nobility not the smallfolk. From what I can recall we hear of 3 smallfolk marriages namely Davos, Ramsay's mom and the whore at Mole's town that talks with Queen Alysanne. Davos seems to have married for love while Ramsay's mom out of convenience. From what we know whatever the reasons were there was no coercion. The whore at Mole's Town seems to have also married out of choice tho things did turn very sour because of the First Night. So from what we know smallfolk marriage is done consensually in the 7k. Meanwhile in wilding ,,marriages" the women has 0 say no matter what. Like not even formally (at least nobles maintain the appearance of it being consensual, and due to the power and their ambitions most of the time it really is consensual). For example you make Cersei an example here, but from her own POV we know she was absolutely smitten with Robert and quite happy to marry him (until after the marriage she figured out the truth about who Robert really was).

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

if said man rapes her then what? They won't even call it rape because it's her responsibility to do her "duties" as a wife.

While it is true that marital rape is a problem in all of Westeros (hell until recently it was a problem in our world and it still somewhat is) it's occurrence is relatively low in the story the only documented examples are Cersei, Rhaella, Naerys and maybe Lysa (hard to tell as we have no POV and when she talks about it she's pretty vague on what really happened). All the other marriages we hear about seem to have no rape in them. Meanwhile wildling weddings are clearly a form of rape and clearly unlike the 7k they're 100% ok with it. Like people like Jaime were outraged by what Aerys did to his wife while Tormund (who I think you'll agree is one of the better wildings) happily talks about how his daughter got raped. And as I said before arranged marriages in the 7k only happen in the nobility where at least they have the perk of being very rich.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

At the very least though, a wildling woman is allowed to leave if she can.

First off, the she can leave if she can argument has a lot of problems first one being that in such a case the husbands relatives would kill her. Also there is the fact that if she somehow manages to escape then she can just be kidnapped and raped again by however find her. At least in the 7k marring again is seen as a big no-no so widows are generally left alone (as are wives after a couple of years of marriage, when their husbands become disinterested in them and find some mistresses)

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

A woman in the rest of the kingdom that escaped her husband would most often be sent back to him by any Lord that found her. 

Somehow I severely doubt that a noble woman in the 7k would chose to live with the smallfolk rather then stay with their husbands.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And generally, a woman doesn't get stolen by a man she doesn't want to be stolen by.

There are a lot of rape victims who would disagree with that statement.

[sweetsunray]

9 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

There are a lot of rape victims who would disagree with that statement.

That's a straw man. I wasn't talking about rape victims. I explained beforehand what historically "stealing" means, and in which type of societies we tend to see them: hunt & gathering bands, before making that statement. In other words, your response is an argument in bad faith.

If you want to be ignorant and insist on calling it (modern) rape, because you're equating it to present day abductions and a man forcing himself onto a woman who doesn't want to with a gun to her head, then that's your prerogative, but it does not help you get a better understanding of what George is writing and means with "stealing".

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, sweetsunray said:

That's a straw man. I wasn't talking about rape victims. I explained beforehand what historically "stealing" means, and in which type of societies we tend to see them: hunt & gathering bands, before making that statement. In other words, your response is an argument in bad faith.

Not really. While I agree that some of their weddings could be just ritualistic, a lot of them clearly aren't. As an example look at Tormund's daughter. We are clearly told that she stole her from the tent by fighting just 2 underage boys. There's nothing ritualistic about that, just kidnapping. So in such a case she has absolutely no choice. So yeah in the marriage the man kidnaps and then rapes a woman here. While I agree that this thing was more ritualistic in nature in reality (see the Lakota whose weddings were decided by a race between the would be groom and bride) here it is clearly presented as being very real. It also fits with the wildling ideology of the best warrior survives everyone else dies.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I don’t dislike them for their culture, I dislike them due to their rather pitiful, primitive insignificance. So much time is wasted on them - more particularly, so much of Jon’s arc is wasted on them. To the point that some fans fantasize about Jon becoming King of the Freefolk or some such destiny. What an incredibly low bar to set for the central character of the series.

All the Free Folk in the world number less than the peasants that live just in the Karstark lands, as a comparison. And that was before the arrival of Winter and the Others, which will pretty much wipe out 90% of them. 
 

As I said, they are insignificant.  To exchange being King in the North for being leader of the Freefolk is far from a like for like replacement.
 

Martin should have given them greater magical knowledge to compensate for their primitive technology and low population. That at least would have made them interesting as a faction contesting this game. But as it stands, they are almost worthless in the bigger picture.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

All the Free Folk in the world number less than the peasants that live just in the Karstark lands, as a comparison.

Possibly, tho to be fair, they make up for it due to the fact they mobilize up to 50% of their population for war (medieval realms could maybe muster 1-2%)

[sweetsunray]

15 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not really. While I agree that some of their weddings could be just ritualistic, a lot of them clearly aren't. As an example look at Tormund's daughter. We are clearly told that she stole her from the tent by fighting just 2 underage boys. There's nothing ritualistic about that, just kidnapping. So in such a case she has absolutely no choice. So yeah in the marriage the man kidnaps and then rapes a woman here. While I agree that this thing was more ritualistic in nature in reality (see the Lakota whose weddings were decided by a race between the would be groom and bride) here it is clearly presented as being very real. It also fits with the wildling ideology of the best warrior survives everyone else dies.

Tormund's daughter is exactly an example of the ritual. It's unlikely her older brothers "slept through it all". Their didn't participate in resisting, for then their sister's lover doesn't stand a chance. But they have to explain it the next day, and say they slept through it all. It involving her kid brothers fighting for her is eactly the picture of a ritual. And the scratches on her man's back have a double entendre - not of rape, but enjoyment.

We hear Tormund tell this along with how he grieves for the death of some of his children. There's no way that George wrote Tormund as grieving father and then callously laughing over an actual rape of his daughter, let alone Jon. It's not just arguing in bad faith, but reading in bad faith.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Tormund's daughter is exactly an example of the ritual. It's unlikely her older brothers "slept through it all". Their didn't participate in resisting, for then their sister's lover doesn't stand a chance. But they have to explain it the next day, and say they slept through it all. It involving her kid brothers fighting for her is eactly the picture of a ritual. And the scratches on her man's back have a double entendre - not of rape, but enjoyment.

We hear Tormund tell this along with how he grieves for the death of some of his children. There's no way that George wrote Tormund as grieving father and then callously laughing over an actual rape of his daughter.

Alright then, how about everything Ygritte tells us. Either she's very dumb (I find that unlikely), or she's lying to Jon (again very unlikely cause why would she) or she's right and their marriages consist of real kidnapping, followed by probable rape. Also keep in mind that while ritualistic ,,stealings" did happen IRL, it was mostly in the North American plains. And while those plans are wast and had many different cultures, all of them were based upon helping each other and were generally pretty peaceful (again the Lakota running race). The kidnapping being for real fits very well with the wildling culture of every man for himself, may the best man take it all.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

From what we know arranged marriages in the seven kingdoms seem to only happen in the nobility not the smallfolk

Sure but why would we exclude the nobility when speaking of the way things are done? Also, while it appears smallfolk generally get to marry who they want there really isn't anything stopping their fathers from making them marry who they choose that I'm aware of. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

From what I can recall we hear of 3 smallfolk marriages namely Davos, Ramsay's mom and the whore at Mole's town that talks with Queen Alysanne. Davos seems to have married for love while Ramsay's mom out of convenience. From what we know whatever the reasons were there was no coercion. The whore at Mole's Town seems to have also married out of choice tho things did turn very sour because of the First Night

But in two of your 3 examples, while they may have been able to marry who they chose, a noble person came & raped them anyway. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So from what we know smallfolk marriage is done consensually in the 7k. Meanwhile in wilding ,,marriages" the women has 0 say no matter what.

I wasn't speaking of only the small folk & fail to see why we should exclude the entire noble class in this? Also, the small folk may marry who they please but they don't get to only have sex with who they please. Presumably, raping a wildlings wife would be punished by death. 

I'm not arguing the FF way is so much better I'm saying neither is a considerable amount worse than the other. A noble woman has absolutely no say in who she marries, a small folk woman has no say in who she has sex with, a wildling woman doesn't have a lot of say but she is allowed, per their custom & rule, to escape &/or kill the man she doesn't want to be married to. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

at least nobles maintain the appearance of it being consensual, and due to the power and their ambitions most of the time it really is consensual). For example you make Cersei an example here, but from her own POV we know she was absolutely smitten with Robert and quite happy to marry him (until after the marriage she figured out the truth about who Robert really was)

The nobles do not maintain the appearance of it being consensual. Why would that be a point in their favor if they did anyway? Sure, Cersei was good with marrying Robert in the beginning as I'm sure there are plenty of FF women that are good with who they end up marrying. Cersei also got raped & abused & had no way out other than to illegally kill her husband. A FF woman would be allowed to legally kill her husband to get out of the marriage. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

While it is true that marital rape is a problem in all of Westeros (hell until recently it was a problem in our world and it still somewhat is) it's occurrence is relatively low in the story the only documented examples are Cersei, Rhaella, Naerys and maybe Lysa (hard to tell as we have no POV and when she talks about it she's pretty vague on what really happened). All the other marriages we hear about seem to have no rape in them. Meanwhile wildling weddings are clearly a form of rape and clearly unlike the 7k they're 100% ok with it

If we are only going off of documented cases of rape then the wildlings have a much better record than the rest of the realm. 

Noble women are married off to a man, not of their choosing & by law have to consummate the marriage. It is rape by our standards & the entire realm is 100% ok with it. So I'm not sure what you mean by "unlike" the 7k the FF are 100% ok with it. 

If the woman being ok with the man she marries means it isn't rape then there is no possible way the FF weddings are rape 100% of the time. 

You have to judge them both by the same standards. It can't be rape on one side because the woman has no or very little say & not rape on the other side when the woman still has no or very little say. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Like people like Jaime were outraged by what Aerys did to his wife while Tormund (who I think you'll agree is one of the better wildings) happily talks about how his daughter got raped. And as I said before arranged marriages in the 7k only happen in the nobility where at least they have the perk of being very rich.

Jaime wasn't outraged by Aerys having sex with his wife, consensual or no. He didn't like the brutal treatment & abuse of her. A lot of good Jaime's "outrage" did for her anyway right? I'm sure there are people among the FF that get angry over abuse & mistreatment. Jaime not agreeing with Aerys actions doesn't make the nobility better people than the FF. 

While Tormund's whole conversation there is disturbing I believe what he is bragging about is the fact that his daughter fought back so ferociously, something Aerys wife would not have been allowed to do. 

Yeah, at least the wildlings have the perk of being free. 

I think they are both horrible things & horrible situations but being rich or free doesn't make them any better. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

First off, the she can leave if she can argument has a lot of problems first one being that in such a case the husbands relatives would kill her

Yep & as bad as that situation is it's still a better one than is afforded to the women of the 7k. The FF woman's family can help protect her at least. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Also there is the fact that if she somehow manages to escape then she can just be kidnapped and raped again by however find her

Right, where as if a woman in the 7k escapes she can be kidnapped & raped again by the same man she escaped from. Not only that but the other nobles will generally help him retrieve his wayward bride. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

At least in the 7k marring again is seen as a big no-no so widows are generally left alone (as are wives after a couple of years of marriage, when their husbands become disinterested in them and find some mistresses

This isn't true at all. Lady Hornwood wasn't left alone, Cersei would have been remarried if Tywin hadn't died, Lysa is hounded to remarry & finally does (albeit to a person of her choosing) It isn't a no-no for a widow to remarry nor do we have any evidence the husband leaves the wife alone after a couple of years. We don't know the situation in every case but Robert doesn't leave Cersei alone, Aerys doesn't leave his wife alone. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Somehow I severely doubt that a noble woman in the 7k would chose to live with the smallfolk rather then stay with their husbands

Well, for starters I never suggested any such thing. Secondly I would guarantee you Jeyne would much rather live with the small folk than stay with her husband. Lady Hornwood probably would have as well. There is just no evidence for that claim. 

What I said was the other nobles Lord's would help return the escaped wife to her husband. 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I never said it was their culture. I said they do it. I specifically said further down that the thing that differentiates the FF from the rest of the 7k is that its punished if caught (sometimes depending on who is doing it) in the 7k.

But I was talking about their culture. So why do you bring up things that have nothing to do with the issue I've been raising?

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Anyway the FF aren't one culture. Mance for example doesn't seem to think it's good to rape & kill (for no reason)

His raiders are about that, though.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Every single war the 7k has is full of raping & pillaging & it's looked at as a norm. There are certainly people among the FF who are bad, savage people but it isn't just one culture & there are bad, savage people among the 7k. 

We are not talking about war behavior, but standard cultural behavior. Wildling raiders raid the Gifts and the North in 'peace' as well as in 'war'.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Is it stated somewhere that they remember the Others? I don't recall it, if so. 

Of course they do. Or how else would they know what three horn blows mean?

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yep but that is a rule. Essentially the 7k only accept the rule of the strong also, just on bigger scale. They accepted Aegon's rule because he was the strongest - with his dragons. They continued to accept Targ rule because they were the strongest. After the dragons died they continued to accept their rule because they were still the strongest. Even though they didn't have dragons they commanded armies, had allies etc. Eventually Robert was stronger & took the throne & people accepted his rule because he was the strongest. 

The rule of the strong means the arbitrary rule of strong people. The Seven Kingdoms are in no way near like that. In a wildling world Aenys could have never succeeded the Conqueror because he was weak (and many other Targaryens could have never ruled as kings, nor could have children, old men, etc.). In the Seven Kingdoms laws (many of the shitty or not very developed) rule the land, not brute strength.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That simply isn't true. I guess if you mean like a written law coming from a ruling government of sorts then yeah, there isn't any. Mance is their King & rules them, there are rules. They are probably not hard & fast rules & may change depending on the situation &/or majorities feeling on the matter but there are rules. 

Mance isn't a proper king. He is just some kind of chieftain in a time of war all the people following have acknowledged for a time. He is no proper king and none of his followers are obligated to follow him the moment they no longer want. Mance would then have allow them to go or to subdue them again.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Presumably they would go to the leader of their clan or the King beyond the wall with any issues. Much like the 7k it doesn't mean the leader or the King will agree with you about it or do anything to get back whatever is stolen from you.

That's just wrong considering that thievery is a crime in Westeros, as is rape and the abduction of women. If you do that, the authorities will hunt you down and punish you if they capture you.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

And who in the 7k decides if your complaint is valid? The strongest. If there are no authorities beyond the wall then who is Mance? Who is the leader of the Thenn's?

No, the local lord, be he strong or weak.

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You're fucked if you're weak in the 7k also.

Not to the same degree.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

20 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure but why would we exclude the nobility when speaking of the way things are done? Also, while it appears smallfolk generally get to marry who they want there really isn't anything stopping their fathers from making them marry who they choose that I'm aware of.

I'm not excluding them, but I'm saying that at least in the 7k shitty marriage behavior (which is tamer then the wildling one) only happens to the top 0.1%.

21 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But in two of your 3 examples, while they may have been able to marry who they chose, a noble person came & raped them anyway. 

Yeah that's the First Night for you, which as you may well know is completely illegal punished with gelding.

22 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Presumably, raping a wildlings wife would be punished by death. 

Gelding and life on the wall is not much better.

In general you seem to miss a couple of things.

1. You keep going on how arranged marriages are rape. Now as I mentioned before they only happen in the nobility, where at least nominally both parties consent is needed. Noble maidens probably can say no, but it would mean losing everything they have and being forced to live with the smallfolk. Meanwhile rapey marriages are the norm in FF society. At no point and in no social class is rape not a feature of their marriage.

2. Monstrous behavior happens in both societies yes, but in 7k they are the exception rather then the rule. Yes Ramsay does some horrific shit but he is despised by the whole of the North for it.

3. This brings us to the main factor here. Wildling society is fundamentally flawed that values brute strength above all else and were nothing is forbidden. Say Gregor Clegane was a wildling. In the 7k Gregor only got by by being under the protection of Tywin Lannister and was hated by almost everyone. In the Wilding society he would be king and able to do whatever he wanted seeing as he could kill anyone who objected. Westerosi culture for all it's flaws has generally healthy laws and customs (the only flaw would be the misogyny) you give the rapes committed by the nobles exercising the first night as an example, but remember that's illegal in the 7k and punished with gelding and a life on the wall. So in a society with no rules do you really thing rape of all sorts isn't common occurrence. When all that matters is physical strength and women usually are physically weaker then men (because testosterone) rape is going to be a very common occurrence.

[The Jingo]

I feel something that should also be mentioned in all this talk of ritualistic wife capture is that while some wildling marriages happen that way, others clearly don't.

Like sure, let's just assume that Tormund has complete empathy for his daughter and would have hunted down and killed any man that raped her. His pleasure at the wedding is based entirely on it being an excellent example of marriage by ritual capture. Fine.

But Ygritte outright states that if she doesn't want to be married to someone, she would have to kill him, that she'd have to be ready to defend herself or she'd have to rely on trickery to kill him after the rape occurs. She acknowledges this rape and possible fight to the death as simply something she would have to do - a fact of life, if you will - which pretty strongly suggests that not all wife capture is ritualistic and a significant portion of these marriages are indeed forced.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's called "stealing" and not "raping".

Stealing mean women are (collective) property of other men, and that they can become the possession of other men. This kind of speech doesn't even imply women are, in a sense, the same kind of people than men because men are most definitely never 'stolen' in wildling culture. Instead they are property.

Any woman having sex against her will is raped by our standards. Thus every woman 'stolen' against her will (of which they are many, especially those women from the Gifts and the North that were stolen but also, one assumes, quite a few of the so-called 'wives' of Ygon Oldfeather the girls Varamyr had his shadowcan 'steal'.

Whatever the background of 'wife-stealing' is - Ygritte is very clear about the fact that any woman being stolen by a strong and powerful man should SHUT UP AND BE HAPPY that she has A STRONG FATHER FOR HER CHILDREN, not giving a damn whether said woman actually wants to have children or have sex or leave her family (yet) or be with that fucking guy.

This is just a shitty culture and there is no way how you can justify or explain it and still look at yourself in the mirror.

There are many ways imaginable how a consensual 'giving away of the girl the clan should not fuck' could work, most notably the way George himself came up in 'Bitterblooms' where the isolated clans of the winter planet met at gatherings to fuck and bring in fresh blood by means of many new pregnancies. The wildlings, too, could gather at gathering places and people could get to know each other and then those who wanted to leave their families could go.

But that's not how it is.

Not to mention that your way of explanation (which is nowhere hinted at in the text) completely doesn't consider the possibility that a man falling in love with a woman would want to leave his clan/band to join that of the woman's family - which would equal the woman 'stealing' a man, something that, to our knowledge, never happens.

[The Jingo]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There are many ways imaginable how a consensual 'giving away of the girl the clan should not fuck' could work, most notably the way George himself came up in 'Bitterblooms' where the isolated clans of the winter planet met at gatherings to fuck and bring in fresh blood by means of many new pregnancies. The wildlings, too, could gather at gathering places and people could get to know each other and then those who wanted to leave their families could go.

But that's not how it is.

Not to mention that your way of explanation (which is nowhere hinted at in the text) completely doesn't consider the possibility that a man falling in love with a woman would want to leave his clan/band to join that of the woman's family - which would equal the woman 'stealing' a man, something that, to our knowledge, never happens.

 

Yeah, it's honestly not even that hard to come up with ways to bring in new blood that aren't based around stealing a girl. Like two clans could just come together and agree to form multiple marriages at once. If my sister leaves the clan to marry some other guy, but that other guy's sister marries me and enters the clan, the whole 'spent resources' concern no longer exists.

Or, as you said, there could just be gatherings and fertility festivals or whatnot.

These things just require that the people involved be willing to use words rather than violence, which is not the wildling way.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

That's a straw man. I wasn't talking about rape victims. I explained beforehand what historically "stealing" means, and in which type of societies we tend to see them: hunt & gathering bands, before making that statement. In other words, your response is an argument in bad faith.

If you want to be ignorant and insist on calling it (modern) rape, because you're equating it to present day abductions and a man forcing himself onto a woman who doesn't want to with a gun to her head, then that's your prerogative, but it does not help you get a better understanding of what George is writing and means with "stealing".

George also means 'raping' by his 'stealing' in all those cases where there was no 'nice guy' stealing involved, where the raider took a village and physically abducted a woman who did not want to go with the man who 'stole' her.

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Not really. While I agree that some of their weddings could be just ritualistic, a lot of them clearly aren't. As an example look at Tormund's daughter. We are clearly told that she stole her from the tent by fighting just 2 underage boys. There's nothing ritualistic about that, just kidnapping. So in such a case she has absolutely no choice. So yeah in the marriage the man kidnaps and then rapes a woman here. While I agree that this thing was more ritualistic in nature in reality (see the Lakota whose weddings were decided by a race between the would be groom and bride) here it is clearly presented as being very real. It also fits with the wildling ideology of the best warrior survives everyone else dies.

The obvious issue with the Munda-Ryk example is that these two met under very unusual circumstances - while they were all marching to war and new lands in a vast column of many different tribes of wildlings. This is not proper stealing done by a raider, but a sort of mock ritual version of the actual act (sort of like many Ironborn got 'drowned' at birth), not the kind of way the raiders do it when they attack and steal from a village they actually raid. We can certainly expect such mock versions of the real thing happening whenever some elite wildling trader or traveler befriends some other folks and their children realize they have the hots for each other, or when spear wives like Ygritte hook up with fellow raiders on their raids, when people peacefully meet and trade, etc.

But the standard traditional version of 'wife-stealing' is still brutal and cruel. And it is still done, it isn't even some backwater thing only the 'traditionalists' do anymore, it is what man any great wildling raider prides himself of doing - and many a wildling youth might want to do. We can only guess how many women Ryk, for instance, raped during his many raids beyond the Wall before he hooked up with Val (who may have quenched his thirst for other women, at least for a time).

The very fact that raiding is a great virtue of wildling culture makes it clear that these are not, in essence, a peaceful people.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

12 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I also did not enjoy reading about Ygritte's own coercion to fuck Jon - dubious consent across MANY chapters. 

Yeah, it's no good. She really doesn't seem to care how Jon feels about it, either. She seems to think that because he "stole" her, that he must be interested in her. No good at all.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

But in the end, it's all a show, a mock fight, ritualistic.

Is it, though? How does one show that they're not receptive, then? I would have thought that having one's brothers fight for one's safety would be enough, but evidently not. If having your family fight on your behalf, and then fighting with everything you have isn't enough to prove that you aren't interested in someone's advances, what would be?

I don't know, it just seems to me like you're saying that the act of being raped is equivalent to giving consent for these people, which is obviously horrible.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And generally, a woman doesn't get stolen by a man she doesn't want to be stolen by. 

So, what, if a Wildling gets raped, they probably wanted it? It can't be what you're trying to say, but it really, really is coming across like it.

Edit: Not to mention, nothing you said goes any length to lessening the issue regarding "stealing" women from south of the Wall. Those women definitely are not participating in any mock ritual.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Consent is complicated enough as it is. Seems like a ritual that foggies it up, might not be as charming as the free folk think it is. So in their society, does "no" mean "yes," fighting back means "fuck me harder" a surprise knife to the throat means "I like you," and a slit throat means "I don't" but a punch means "I do?" It just seems like grounds for people to misinterpret a lot, and that's what Ygritte does with her dub con of Jon. If men see women as a conquest, they are encouraged to win even if a woman doesnt want it. Not to say, Westeros doesn't have similar problems with this too and need to work on their own issues. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But I was talking about their culture. So why do you bring up things that have nothing to do with the issue I've been raising?

Lol! Really??

I disagree that it is a considerable amount more or less apart of either culture, but they both do it. That was my point. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

His raiders are about that, though

They are about rape? They raid certainly. But I don't recall them raping. I know we hear from some of the folk of Westeros that the Wildlings are all murdering, raping thieves but that's not really proof. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not talking about war behavior, but standard cultural behavior. Wildling raiders raid the Gifts and the North in 'peace' as well as in 'war

You are talking about "standard cultural behavior" because it fits your narrative. I'm talking about actions. What is practiced in the 7k is not so different from what is practiced by the FF. 

The FF have a need to raid year round, while the rest of the realm only has that need when they are traveling as an army. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they do. Or how else would they know what three horn blows mean?

Where? See the thing for me is, if they didn't forget about the others but merely began to question the fact that they exist wouldn't Waymar & Co have thought "Oh, Shit! They do exist!" Instead of "What the hell is that?" Mormont doesn't give any indication he knows what's going on when the dead man tries to kill him either. They also don't remember how to kill them & have Sam reading up on it. 

Were the 3 horn blows mentioned prior to the NW coming back in contact with the Others? I assumed the 3 horn blows were added on at that point, though they could have been in practice the first time around as well. 

32 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The rule of the strong means the arbitrary rule of strong people. The Seven Kingdoms are in no way near like that. In a wildling world Aenys could have never succeeded the Conqueror because he was weak (and many other Targaryens could have never ruled as kings, nor could have children, old men, etc.). In the Seven Kingdoms laws (many of the shitty or not very developed) rule the land, not brute strength.

It's not exactly the same but it's definitely similar. Aenys had dragons as his disposal no? I imagine the FF would have found that strong enough.  It isn't the same sort of strength that requires winning one on one combat but a strength nonetheless. The Targ's that had dragons ruled because there was no one that could stop them - they were the strongest. The Targ's that followed, with out dragons stayed for a bit because their power rested upon their ancestors, they had a ready made army & set of followers & were not as easily challengeable as a leader of the FF would be but they got challenged & replaced by Robert because he could, because he was stronger. 

It is ultimately brute strength that rules. While a child couldn't be leader of the FF in his own right if the strongest man or woman, say Mance, said my son is now the ruler. As long as Mance was alive with followers & people who would agree & have his back the child would be ruler in name if nothing else. The same with the 7k. Joffrey doesn't get to become King because of his own brute strength but because he has the strength of the KG, the GC, his loyal vassals, the Lannister army, etc. If he didn't, he would get to remain King very long. So when it's all boiled down it's still about brute strength in the end, just on different scales.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Mance isn't a proper king. He is just some kind of chieftain in a time of war all the people following have acknowledged for a time. He is no proper king and none of his followers are obligated to follow him the moment they no longer want. Mance would then have allow them to go or to subdue them again

No, he isn't a "King" in the same way as in the 7k but there are certainly similarities. As you say, Mance would either have to let a rebelling party have their way or subdue them. Likewise, the King of Westeros can either let a rebelling party have their way or subdue them. 

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just wrong considering that thievery is a crime in Westeros, as is rape and the abduction of women. If you do that, the authorities will hunt you down and punish you if they capture you

Sometimes they will. Depending on the situation, the people involved & the people in power. The armies pillaging the land are not hunted down & punished other than Ned sending Beric & Co to get Gregor - which he fails at & no one does a thing about it. Rape is committed all the time by the nobility & not punished because in their eyes it's not rape to force a woman if she is your wife. Jeyne is abducted & married to someone against her will & no one has done a thing because the people with the power think it's ok. It's all in the eye of the person/s ruling. Ramsay wasn't punished for what he did to Lady Hornwood. Roose seems to know right & well he killed Domeric & there is no punishment. 

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the local lord, be he strong or weak

He may be a weak man but if he doesn't have the strength of an army to back him up it isn't going to matter what he says. Whether that be his own army or an army loyal to the King. If he has no strength to put forth his command, his command is worth nothing. 

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to the same degree

I disagree. 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Alright then, how about everything Ygritte tells us. Either she's very dumb (I find that unlikely), or she's lying to Jon (again very unlikely cause why would she) or she's right and their marriages consist of real kidnapping, followed by probable rape. Also keep in mind that while ritualistic ,,stealings" did happen IRL, it was mostly in the North American plains.

What Ygritte tells us is that the women in her culture

a) don't get stolen by a man they hate

b) and if they did, he'd never wake one night, because his throat would be cut.

As some other poster attempted, you can make out an other culture's wedding ritual in a bad light, such as the one where groom and bride are undressed by the guests as they carry bride and groom to the bedroom. To us that sounds humiliating and forcing the woman to undress and be groped in front of a crowd. And yet, I do accept that it's generally a humorous meant custom to celebrate a couple's first night together with a consenting woman. Just as I believe that most fathers attempt to arrange a marriage for their daughters where they like the groom.

But let's be clear, I wouldn't want to be stolen nor undressed by a bunch of people, nor wish it on any woman in my society. But then I never grew up in such a culture.

Quote

And while those plans are wast and had many different cultures, all of them were based upon helping each other and were generally pretty peaceful (again the Lakota running race). The kidnapping being for real fits very well with the wildling culture of every man for himself, may the best man take it all.

There is not "every man for himself" culture with the Free Folk. It's impossible for the Free Folk to have survived for that long north of the wall - mostly hunting and gathering - if they were. And there is plenty of evidence that they are communities who do help one another out. They have villages. There are eldery. They have healers. They take care of children, weep for them. Six women risk their lives to save a girl from Ramsay's mistreatment. At least one already died for her. How the F can you end up claiming "it's every man for himself." Val caring for Monster, knowing it's not her dead sister's child and no blood of hers. Val trekking through the forest north of the Wall in search of Tormund and convincing him to do the best by his people and negotiate with Jon to be allowed through. Mother Mole convinces many people to seek safety at Hardhome. She may have made a mistake, but the least you can say about her is that it is this "wildling culture of every man for himself".

The only men of the FF who have argued "every man for himself" were Craster and Varamyr, who both are rapists, despite the fact neither of them "steals" a woman. And both are pretty much despised. 

Back to the stealing. Where imo the potential problems lie is in the intercultural relations. Girls south of the Wall are not acquainted with the stealing ritual, and good Free Folk young men don't know any other courtship. Whether those girls were indeed raped we do not yet know (as not necessarily any young girl abducted by Native Americans was raped). They were truly abducted though and likely feared the worst would happen to them. I suspect their case is likely more along the lines of Dany and Drogo, where we readers question whether the consent is valid consent or not - given the age and the situation, the initial fear for violence, but instead meet with gentle kindness. Some argue that leads to stockholm syndrome or trauma bonding. 

 

[sweetsunray]

26 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Is it, though? How does one show that they're not receptive, then? I would have thought that having one's brothers fight for one's safety would be enough, but evidently not. If having your family fight on your behalf, and then fighting with everything you have isn't enough to prove that you aren't interested in someone's advances, what would be?

Well, for starters I assume that there is a level of communication both verbally and in body language where they show interest to one another, usually around witnesses. Men (or women) don't just step up to a woman telling them when and where to meet for a date. It was obvious to many people that Ygritte was into Jon. And she decided for herself to consider Jon capturing her when they first met counted as "stealing". Val seems to be doing something similar, when she asks about Jarl's death and how Jon in his mind was protecting her and Dalla from the fighting in the camp when Stannis arrived. Now, Jarl just fell from the Wall, with Jon looking up from the ground. But Val is free to consider the Wall as Jon's to command and thus Jon as the stronger man. The point is that these women can use the subtleties to consider themselves "stolen" and act pro-actively about it. Other Free Folk seem to pick up on this with Val as well. Tormund lets his son know to not be even thinking of trying to steal Val, for Val's choice lies with Jon.

So, in the case of the older brothers not stepping in to fight for their sister, imo they picked up the signals from their sister that she liked Longspear.

26 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I don't know, it just seems to me like you're saying that the act of being raped is equivalent to giving consent for these people, which is obviously horrible.

So, what, if a Wildling gets raped, they probably wanted it? It can't be what you're trying to say, but it really, really is coming across like it.

Again that's an argument of bad faith. Bullshit. I'm NOT saying that. I do not condone rape. I luckily until now have never been raped, but I've been groped and stalked by men who couldn't take "no" for an answer. What is horrible is how you try to twist it all in a pretzel so you can point at me and imply "you're defending rape" or "blame the victim", just because you hate Free Folk.

46 minutes ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Edit: Not to mention, nothing you said goes any length to lessening the issue regarding "stealing" women from south of the Wall. Those women definitely are not participating in any mock ritual.

I mentioned that in an independent post that crossed with yours. And I agree, the "stealing" of women from the south of the Wall is an altogether different matter.

And now you and I are done. I have nothing to say to someone who argues in such a twisted way.