Jump to content

Down with the Free Folk


The Jingo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:
1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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%.

But you followed it by giving 2 examples of shitty marriages among the small folk. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

Sure, if it's caught, if the person can report it to someone other than the Lord that raped her, if the ruling party believes said small folk woman over the Lord (which wouldn't happen very often) & if the ruling party gives a shit about it. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Gelding and life on the wall is not much better

No it's not but where do we have an example of a Lord practicing the right of the first night getting gelded &/or put on the wall? 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

There is no consent needed, even nominally, by both parties. If a father is kind enough to ask his daughters wants & take those into consideration then great but he is under no obligation to do so. 

Again, the small folk, while they may get to marry someone of their choosing it doesn't save them from being raped. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "rapey marriages being the norm among the FF" 

So, the small folk may not be subjected to rapey marriages in general but they can still end up raped, with no apparent consequences, even though it's said to be illegal.

Everything about a nobles marriage is rapey. So I fail to see where the huge difference is in the two. There are some minor differences, sure. But the end result is much the same. 

At no point, in no social class is rape not a part of the nobilities marriage either. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

It isn't just Ramsay by a long shot. Robert, Aerys, Cersei, Roose, Joffrey, Tyrion, Gregor, Tywin, just off the top of my head, have all either raped, attempted to rape, commanded & allowed rape, or expressed their willingness & ablility to rape with no apparent punishment whatsoever. Look how many of those are among the ruling class of Westeros. What good does it do to say rape is illegal if the ruling class participates in it? They aren't very likely to be sympathetic to someone else reporting rape to them, especially not a low born person. As a matter of fact do we have any instance of rape being reported & punished other than the low born boys on the wall? The nobility in general do not get punished for it so what good does it to do to call it illegal? 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

It's the same with the rest of the 7k. They can say it's "forbidden" but if it is still done & not punished it doesn't matter what they say. Words are wind. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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

What difference does it make why he can do it? He can & does do it. He could & would do it among the wildlings with pretty much the same affect. They would likely hate a man practicing the things Gregor is also. Unless you think these men, women, & children would enjoy being raped, abused, tortured, & murdered? 

He would continue on doing so if & until someone strong enough killed him, just like in the 7k. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

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. 

I disagree 100% with the bolded. There is almost nothing healthy about the laws & customs in Westeros. 

I could be wrong but I don't recall a single example of the right to the first night being punished. I do recall an example of it not being punished. Again though it's all going to be up to the people involved. 

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

 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 occurrenc

No I think it is a common occurrence in both places but honestly, probably less so with the FF because women are taught to fight & have more allowances to rid themselves of their raper. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

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.

Munda's brothers did step in. They just failed to fight Ryk off. Only one of them didn't help.

28 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I'm NOT saying that. I do not condone rape.

I'd bloody well hope not. If that's not what you are trying to say, however, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

28 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

What is horrible is how you try to twist it all in a pretzel

I'm not twisting anything. You outright said this:

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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

What other way can one interpret that? In all cases of someone being stolen, they are overpowered. Ygritte was overpowered by Jon, and therefore "stolen". Munda was overpowered by Ryk, and "stolen". The hypothetical people in Ygritte and Jon's conversation were overpowered, and "stolen". Quite literally, these women have their power stolen from them. You directly said that this implies consent, as otherwise they wouldn't have been stolen.

If I've somehow misinterpreted what you're saying, please tell me. But don't try to paint me out to be the bad guy when you're seemingly openly defending rape.

29 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

so you can point at me and imply "you're defending rape" or "blame the victim", just because you hate Free Folk.

No, no, I hate the Wildlings because of this, I'm not using it to defame them.

34 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

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

Mmhmm. Be assured, I find you as distasteful as you find me, in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In GRRM's world be it Westeros or Essos, men are rapey. Arya is told that she must pass as a boy. Sansa can't roam Westeros like Arya for obvious reasons and when Arya comes to a certain age, GRRM has her whisked off to Braavos where she can be more sheltered and gets faces. Catelyn needs escorts. I don't think that somehow the wildlings are populated by an unusual percentage of sensitive, enlightened and modern-sensibilitied men. It's also strongly implied that wildling women must be tough to fight off unwanted stealing. See Jon dealing with the spearwives at the Wall. This is a very touchy subject and I don't think it would be written with so much vaguery if it wasn't ever meant to be controversial. The Northerners are very clear that wildlings steal their women and they're never seen again and this is never challenged in-world. There's no controversary presented for this practice among the wildlings. Yes, sometimes it's a consensual ritual, but a lot of times it's not. Ygritte's insisting that Jon stole her helps to underline that this is not always consensual as Jon's clearly not on board and never was on board with it as much as he came to love her and if wildling culture is so enlightened, this grossly undermines that understanding with the reader. Ygritte's position is that Jon has no choice and she's presented as the norm to the reader. 

 

5 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

I think some are being somewhat disingenuous with their interpretation of Wildling customs. But, if you view them that way, they’re not any worse than, say, Westerosi customs. Westerosi Lords barter away their daughter’s wombs for power or influence or money or alliance... the daughters get no say in the matches, whether they consent or not is irrelevant. The daughters are then forced to perform some sort of ritual, in front of multitudes of people, to give their coming rape some sort of religious blessing, and then to feast and dance, as if their coming rape is to be celebrated. In the moments before the rape, the daughter is stripped, humiliated, and sexually abused before the entire congregation, before the rape is witnessed by members of that congregation. Sometimes, a Lord will even have the cruelty to introduce his daughter to her future rapist months or years in advance of the actual rape, when the two are betrothed. 

I agree with this post including the disingenuousness though I see it in posters interpreting the wildling stealing culture as one-dimensional when it's clearly complicated and manifests in a lot of different ways. As for the 7Ks, dress it up in silks, ceremony and tradition, and somehow it's not rape. And I'll add, the 7 Kingdoms do it to their men, too who are forced to marry and sleep with whom they don't wish to. Ned got lucky. A lot of male characters were not and were shackled to wives who made them deeply unhappy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's the same with the rest of the 7k. They can say it's "forbidden" but if it is still done & not punished it doesn't matter what they say. Words are wind. 

We really don't ever see it being practiced. After Jaehaerys made it illegal there is only one documented case of it happening. However we can guess it is punishable for 2 reasons. First Westeros clearly punishes rapers in times of peace (see a lot of NW recruits). Second Roose seems to have been terrified about Ned finding out about it and so he has taken extreme precautions. Your entire argument is ,,Yes wildlings are openly okay with rape, but look Roose raped a woman so he got away with it, clearly 7k culture promotes rape." Basically that is the problem with the wildlings. While all cultures have their heroes and monsters, wildling society is made in such a way that rapists are not only widely accepted, but their cultural norms actually encourages rape. What more can I say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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, let alone Jon. It's not just arguing in bad faith, but reading in bad faith.

Let me add to this that it was exactly Tormund's story that made me certain that the "stealing" was a ritualistic custom. It is not a coincidence that Munda liked the boy and her elder brothers "slept through" the stealing. Imagine with Munda fighting back and probably screaming, with the younger boys chasing the pair, how noisy it all must have been. No, they "slept" and Tormund was away because they approved of the marriage and didn't want to give the boy too hard a time. The younger brothers, however, probably enjoyed the game and did happily what the family's honour required, yet the "thief" didn't have much to fear them. I'm pretty sure if Munda hadn't liked Ryk, or if her family hadn't approved of him, her brothers wouldn't have "slept", and Tormund would have been there, too.   

I think one of the purposes of the ritual is to make the woman more valuable in the eyes of the husband - after all, it wasn't easy to steal her, and her family members found her valuable enough to fight in order to keep her. As a result, he would appreciate her more. Another thing is that during the fight and the chase, the woman's family can test the man's courage and strength and his willingness to fight for the woman, so the family can rest assured that he will be both willing and able to protect her in dangerous situations later. Ryk may have been chased only by the younger brothers because Tormund knew him well enough to trust him, so the fight was only symbolic. 

In the case of Ygritte's first lover, the young man, being essentially a stranger, really had to show his ability to fight for Ygritte (who was probably expecting him to steal her), and he failed the test, so he wasn't deemed worthy of her. 

Tormund is not at all callous about his daughter's fate, as this quote shows:

Quote

"I told him if he ever hurt her, I'd yank his member off and beat him bloody with it."

Tormund very much cares about his daughter, so if Munda had been hurt by the stealing, Ryk wouldn't have got away with it. Jon perfectly understands the custom, and he also understands that Munda's wedding was a rare happy event during a dark period of hopelessness and loss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

It is an irrelevant point. We don't talk about individuals here, but cultural difference that shape the values and actions of individuals. And on that level the wildlings simply suck much more than the people of the Seven Kingdoms.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

I say every woman stolen by a wildling during the raid of a village is raped because there is a significant enough difference in power between these people. For instance, I also say Argella Durrandon was raped by Orys Baratheon. Even if she started to like the man who slew her own father later in their marriage (which we know nothing about) she would have *never* agreed to marry this man if she had had a choice. Her attempt to defy the Targaryens after her father's death proves that.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

It is different, and that is the issue.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Which they rarely do. The Seven Kingdoms do not attack other people in wars of conquest or raids since Dorne joined the Realm. Wars are a very rare occurrence in the Seven Kingdoms.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

Reread the Prologue. Will does recognize the Other(s) as Other(s). He doesn't say 'hell, what kind of creature is that?'. Waymar is new to the Watch and doesn't really know much of what the others know, but Gared definitely suspect something othery going on there with the cold, his wish to light a fire, etc.

They no longer know how wights are made and stuff, but they still recognize them as what they are.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

Reread the Prologue of ASoS.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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. 

No, the Targaryens are not 'strong' the way the wildlings have strong leaders. The latter only accept actually strong people - physically strong warriors, people able and willing to kill people, people with actual charisma and will to dominate others - as their leaders. The Targaryens like any other noble house have strong and weak leaders - something wildling culture would never condone. In fact, one assumes even a man like Mance would be quickly pushed aside ones old age weakened both body and mind. A strong man would never follow a hairless, toothless old dotard.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

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.

The wildlings don't give shit about hereditary rule. If the son of a man is strong enought to win the loyalty of his father's followers he might rule over them, too. If not, then he won't rule over anyone. Wildling culture does not care about this kind of coterie the lords of Westeros have. If you show weakness your followers don't say 'let me help you keep the others in line' but, 'well, you are not worth leading us, now I'll be our leader and you follow me'.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

What Ygritte tells us is that the women in her culture

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

That's not what she says. She says being stolen by a strong man means she is stolen by a good man she should want to be stolen by.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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

And then she would be dead, too, most likely, underlining how much this culture sucks.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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.

I don't wish that kind of thing on any woman, no matter what kind of society they live in. I call out shit in both the shitty wildling culture and the shitty feudalism nonsense of the Seven Kingdoms. But the fact remains that the latter are a tidbit less fucked-up as the wildlings.

In fact, the whole First Night thing being a First Men custom is very much reflected in Varamyr's behavior towards the people he rules - he is a powerful man, stronger than others due to his skinchanging abilities, and that gives him the right to take as many women as he wants from the ranks of the people he rules. This kind of thing is the root of the First Night custom of the Seven Kingdoms as per Albin Massey in FaB.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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".

People are loyal to their own to a point, of course, but it is 'every man for himself' insofar as who is to rule over the family/clan and, more importantly, every clan against everybody else (and every individual against the others) when it is about sparse resources and winter provisions. Even in the North family loyalty dies in winter when the individual is sacrificed/forced to sacrifice himself so that the group may live.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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.

Varamyr is despised for a being a skinchanger, not because of his personal traits. Thistle actually seems to number Varamyr among the great heroes of the wildlings and seems to regret his apparent death/disappearance when she talks about their lost heroes in the wake of the battle.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

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.

Dany was raped multiple times by Drogo, there is no question about that. Her first night was rape insofar as the guy touched and fingered her to make her wet (with the author actually giving the impression it isn't rape when you do stuff like that, which is disgusting) not to mention that Dany made it clear that she didn't want to marry/have sex with that guy at all, and was ignored, which is the very definition of not giving consent. Later Drogo routinely rapes Dany every single night, never giving a damn whether she wants to have sex, in what position, or whether she wants to stop because it is too painful. All that fits rape perfectly as by our modern standards.

Thus, if you compare any hypothetical scenario involving wildling raiders stealing women to Dany and Drogo the lines are in no way blurred.

And in general: We are talking fictional characters here. Nobody in their right minds 'hates' fictional characters because they are not real. I personally happen to like quite a few wildlings, but that's irrelevant when discussing the values those people espouse and the culture they grew up in or idealize. It makes no sense for a modern person to bent over backwards to justify or sugar-coat the shitty values of those wildlings - one can like Mance and Ygritte and Val just as well if one recognizes how shitty the world is they live in. Just as one can like Ned and Bran and still be abhorred by the shitty world they live in where fathers take their preteen children to executions where the father acts as headsman. That's just wrong on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

We really don't ever see it being practiced. After Jaehaerys made it illegal there is only one documented case of it happening. 

Yeah, we have one known case since it was abolished. However, it's said that the Boltons, Umbers, & some of the mountain clans still practice it & we have no documented cases of it being punished. 

38 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

However we can guess it is punishable for 2 reasons. First Westeros clearly punishes rapers in times of peace (see a lot of NW recruits).

That doesn't make it clear at all though. We don't really know how many at the wall are even there because of rape but we do know at least one that says he wasn't guilty of it. And we know of none, that I'm aware of, that are there for practicing the 1st Night. Rape is occasionally punished, yes, but it's all dependent upon who is doing the raping & who gets told about it. There is certainly no standard set of punishments for rapers across the board. 

42 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Second Roose seems to have been terrified about Ned finding out about it and so he has taken extreme precautions

When was he terrified?

42 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Your entire argument is ,,Yes wildlings are openly okay with rape, but look Roose raped a woman so he got away with it, clearly 7k culture promotes rape."

Not at all. My argument is yes, women are raped, in both places & while they are not under the exact same circumstances the end result is typically the same - a woman gets raped & there are no consequences. There are exceptions to the rule, sure but there may be exceptions to the rule under the FF too. 

I've given several other examples so I don't think it's fair to say that I'm basing my whole argument on that. 

45 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Basically that is the problem with the wildlings. While all cultures have their heroes and monsters, wildling society is made in such a way that rapists are not only widely accepted, but their cultural norms actually encourages rape. What more can I say

I'm not arguing that there are not rapists among the FF. My argument is that 

1. There are several different cultures among them that we don't know the details of enough to say they are a rape culture. 

2. We do know enough about the 7k's to say their culture promotes rape. They don't say as much, no. But they practice it. Rape is frequently committed & left unpunished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

In GRRM's world be it Westeros or Essos, men are rapey. Arya is told that she must pass as a boy. Sansa can't roam Westeros like Arya for obvious reasons and when Arya comes to a certain age, GRRM has her whisked off to Braavos where she can be more sheltered and gets faces. Catelyn needs escorts.

Nowhere is it indicated in the text that the issue here is that they would get raped. Arya is disguised as a boy so nobody thinks she is Arya Stark of Winterfell, not to prevent the boys around her from raping her. And every noblewoman and nobleman owning valuable stuff needs escorts to protect him or her - not just from evil rapist but also from people who would rob them.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I don't think that somehow the wildlings are populated by an unusual percentage of sensitive, enlightened and modern-sensibilitied men. It's also strongly implied that wildling women must be tough to fight off unwanted stealing.

But not all wildling women are tough, nor are all wildling women spearwives. This is the underlying misogyny of this society we also get in the real world where women are supposed to be more masculine to get a fighting chance in the 'tough business world'. There are a couple of self-determined powerful women in the wildling culture ... at the cost of who knows how many Gillys.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

See Jon dealing with the spearwives at the Wall. This is a very touchy subject and I don't think it would be written with so much vaguery if it wasn't ever meant to be controversial. The Northerners are very clear that wildlings steal their women and they're never seen again and this is never challenged in-world. There's no controversary presented for this practice among the wildlings. Yes, sometimes it's a consensual ritual, but a lot of times it's not. Ygritte's insisting that Jon stole her helps to underline that this is not always consensual as Jon's clearly not on board and never was on board with it as much as he came to love her and if wildling culture is so enlightened, this grossly undermines that understanding with the reader. Ygritte's position is that Jon has no choice and she's presented as the norm to the reader. 

Jon never stole Ygritte, and Ygritte isn't as stupid as to ever believe that. Jon kills one of her companions and then he lets her go. It is an accident that they meet again later.

The reason she talks the way she does is to undermine Jon's resolve and to get him to fuck her. It is her own way to rape him, which she very much does. Ygritte doesn't care about Jon's boundaries very much the same way the average wildling raider apparently imagines the average woman does want to get stolen by him.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I agree with this post including the disingenuousness though I see it in posters interpreting the wildling stealing culture as one-dimensional when it's clearly complicated and manifests in a lot of different ways. As for the 7Ks, dress it up in silks, ceremony and tradition, and somehow it's not rape. And I'll add, the 7 Kingdoms do it to their men, too who are forced to marry and sleep with whom they don't wish to. Ned got lucky. A lot of male characters were not and were shackled to wives who made them deeply unhappy. 

Nobody in their right mind says that the arranged marriages of the Seven Kingdoms cannot border on rape (although I pointed out above we get a lot of arranged marriages in FaB that happen to be based on love or at least affection, meaning those were not as bad as some of those we get in ASoIaF). Still, all those marriages where the woman didn't consent to either the marriage as such or sex in the marriage include rapes.

However, the idea that the men suffer to the same degree as the women is ludicrous. Wives do not have power over their husbands in this world. Stannis may be stuck with an ugly wife he doesn't want to sleep with, but so what? He can and does fuck Melisandre instead or he could go in a brothel or take a mistress when he felt like it - Selyse cannot do any of that. She is the one who is stuck with Stannis, no matter what.

40 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

We really don't ever see it being practiced. After Jaehaerys made it illegal there is only one documented case of it happening. However we can guess it is punishable for 2 reasons. First Westeros clearly punishes rapers in times of peace (see a lot of NW recruits). Second Roose seems to have been terrified about Ned finding out about it and so he has taken extreme precautions. Your entire argument is ,,Yes wildlings are openly okay with rape, but look Roose raped a woman so he got away with it, clearly 7k culture promotes rape." Basically that is the problem with the wildlings. While all cultures have their heroes and monsters, wildling society is made in such a way that rapists are not only widely accepted, but their cultural norms actually encourages rape. What more can I say?

Yes, those basically are the differences.

It is very easily understood if you compare it to Ironborn culture. We wouldn't say all them reavers raping and plundering the land are equal to some green land shitheads who do equally shitty stuff. We do understand that it is the Ironborn reaving culture, the so-called old way, that twists reasonably good people into following a set of values that's bad in principle. The enlightened Ironborn like Asha or the Reader understand this - the others don't.

The fact that there might be some sort of happy consensual 'marriages' growing out of stealing a woman is basically the same as insisting that some women wanting to be salt wives (we have one precedent for that) and some women being happy salt wives meaning that the custom as such isn't that bad. And this also extends to arranged marriages, of course - just because there are Cat and Ned and Alyssa and Baelon doesn't mean arranged marriages always work out or a positive custom. The opposite would be correct because we recognize that it infinges on the personal right of individuals to not be able to choose their spouses or sex partners themselves. The cultures and people today still doing shit like that are inherently bad for the people involved.

One can continue this with slavery - there are a couple of morons in the books who want to become slaves or want to remain slaves but their opinion doesn't matter one bit when we discuss whether slavery is a good or bad institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

No, they "slept" and Tormund was away because they approved of the marriage and didn't want to give the boy too hard a time. The younger brothers, however, probably enjoyed the game and did happily what the family's honour required, yet the "thief" didn't have much to fear them. I'm pretty sure if Munda hadn't liked Ryk, or if her family hadn't approved of him, her brothers wouldn't have "slept", and Tormund would have been there, too.  

Yes, this.

I think Munda's little brothers had the time of their life, had some sort of Santa Claus event feeling about it. We're fighting to keep our sister.

43 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I think one of the purposes of the ritual is to make the woman more valuable in the eyes of the husband - after all, it wasn't easy to steal her, and her family members found her valuable enough to fight in order to keep her. As a result, he would appreciate her more. Another thing is that during the fight and the chase, the woman's family can test the man's courage and strength and his willingness to fight for the woman, so the family can rest assured that he will be both willing and able to protect her in dangerous situations later. Ryk may have been chased only by the younger brothers because Tormund knew him well enough to trust him, so the fight was only symbolic. 

In the case of Ygritte's first lover, the young man, being essentially a stranger, really had to show his ability to fight for Ygritte (who was probably expecting him to steal her), and he failed the test, so he wasn't deemed worthy of her. 

Yes, part of it is establishing or confirming the woman as being valuable. Pretty sure FF parents know their daughter will end up moving off one day, and in the case of band life, they won't see their daughter again perhaps several years later, when she has a child of her own. Rituals, how weird they may be, help people to deal with transition periods, to deal with the reality of it and channel the stress and emotions about it. In this case, I think it also aims to channel violence. While the band life in the wild is tough, such societies often create rituals that allow for mock violence in order to avoid real violence that could escalate quickly into one band massacring another band. Even raids organised by teenage boys amongst bands occur within restrictions.

Let's say you're an older brother and you realize some guy of 17 has an interest in your younger sister of 15. The feeling to punch that guy in the face surely must rise, especially if you still see her as that gangly girl who played with dolls two years ago. Well, in this ritual the brothers or father actually get a chance to do so, without it leading to further escalating violence, and without breaking the daughter's heart. Where our young teens of say 12 dream of 16 candles and try to imagine who might take them to prom, FF girls will be picturing who might dare to go up against their family and themselves.

Tormund is portrayed as actually being a very observant man, especially when it comes to whom likes whom. He's the leader of a band of FF. It's in his interest to know whom likes whom all in order to prevent harm. So, yeah, imo Munda was willing, and Tormund and her older brothers okayed him beforehand, and Ryk's stealing and the timing of it was expected. Still she gave him a "proper" fierce fight, raising her status, her father's and Ryk's. 

In Ygritte's case: she had already slept with the boy that later tried to steal her. She gave him her maidenhead at a feast when she was 13-14. But she was unimpressed by him. It was actually Ryk who fought Ygritte's lover when the guy returned to steal her. Ryk broke the guy's arm. So, "stealing" is not done to have sex, because FF girls can and will have sex with guys of their own choosing before any stealing is done by that guy. It's done to marry or form a long term relationship.

Ygritte must have shared her not-so-positive sentiments about the guy to friends or family. Ryk knew of it and was prepared to injure the unwanted thief, so he did.

Now I agree with others that this whole "custom" becomes problematic in an intercultural context. Stealing the daughters of Northern houses is a big issue that will have to be addressed. I hope George sheds some light on that through Rowan, the spearwife at WF who helped rescue Jeyne Poole. Ser Patrek trying to steal Val is another one. Here, Selyse decided Val's groom without informing Val of it beforehand. Patrek is a southron knight who thinks of Val not that dissimilar as Axel Florent does. Then Jon mentions the stealing. And so Patrek goes a "stealing", but he does so without prior courtship and making sure the lady will appreciate being stolen. Here we have someone trying to perform the ritual, but only knowing the surface meaning and interpreting it as a southerner (and like some posters here continue to interprete it). That got Patrek well-and-good killed. And unfortunately violence will follow from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Arya is disguised as a boy so nobody thinks she is Arya Stark of Winterfell, not to prevent the boys around her from raping her. And every noblewoman and nobleman owning valuable stuff needs escorts to protect him or her - not just from evil rapist but also from people who would rob them.

Yoren disagrees.

ACoK, Arya I

“Afterward he told her that from there to Winterfell she’d be Arry the orphan boy. “Gate shouldn’t be hard, but the road’s another matter. You got a long way to go in bad company. I got thirty this time, men and boys all bound for the Wall, and don’t be thinking they’re like that bastard brother o’ yours.” He shook her. “Lord Eddard gave me pick o’ the dungeons, and I didn’t find no little lordlings down there. This lot, half o’ them would turn you over to the queen quick as spit for a pardon and maybe a few silvers. The other half’d do the same, only they’d rape you first. So you keep to yourself and make your water in the woods, alone. That’ll be the hardest part, the pissing, so don’t drink no more’n you need.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

ACoK, Arya I

“Afterward he told her that from there to Winterfell she’d be Arry the orphan boy. “Gate shouldn’t be hard, but the road’s another matter. You got a long way to go in bad company. I got thirty this time, men and boys all bound for the Wall, and don’t be thinking they’re like that bastard brother o’ yours.” He shook her. “Lord Eddard gave me pick o’ the dungeons, and I didn’t find no little lordlings down there. This lot, half o’ them would turn you over to the queen quick as spit for a pardon and maybe a few silvers. The other half’d do the same, only they’d rape you first. So you keep to yourself and make your water in the woods, alone. That’ll be the hardest part, the pissing, so don’t drink no more’n you need.”

The point was still to disguise her identity to get her out of the city. Shitty recruits for the Watch are not representative for 'the rapey everyday man of the Seven Kingdoms' @Lollygag was trying to construct here. Arya being raped is much less of an issue for Yoren than her being sold to Cersei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is an irrelevant point

You are certainly free to think so. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't talk about individuals here, but cultural difference that shape the values and actions of individuals. And on that level the wildlings simply suck much more than the people of the Seven Kingdoms

Who is we? Where is here? You don't have to talk about individuals if you don't want & that isn't what I was talking about either but I can should I like. 

When two sets of people practice essentially the same things I don't see what the point is in pointing out that the rulers of one of those peoples say these things are illegal & even occasionally punish it. That just isn't a considerable difference to me, but to each their own. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

say every woman stolen by a wildling during the raid of a village is raped because there is a significant enough difference in power between these people

Fair enough but so is every woman in the 7k that is made to participate in an arranged marriage. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is different, and that is the issue

I understand that you say they are different but have failed to give an example of something that happens among the FF that either doesn't happen among the 7k or is punished semi regularly among the 7k. We aren't talking about one person here, we have a multitude of examples of raiding, rapes, murders, and abuse among the 7k that goes unpunished. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Which they rarely do. The Seven Kingdoms do not attack other people in wars of conquest or raids since Dorne joined the Realm. Wars are a very rare occurrence in the Seven Kingdoms

So? They do it when they need to & see nothing wrong with it. There need being less often over the years isn't an example of a less savage society. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Reread the Prologue. Will does recognize the Other(s) as Other(s). He doesn't say 'hell, what kind of creature is that?'. Waymar is new to the Watch and doesn't really know much of what the others know, but Gared definitely suspect something othery going on there with the cold, his wish to light a fire, etc.

I just read it again & I don't see anything definitively saying Will or Gared know what the Others are. When Gared says he wants to light the fire he says to keep away animals or "other" things. Could be indicative of him knowing about the Others but not definitely. 

We get to see some of the recruits go through the process of becoming NW members though so we know being told such isn't any formal part of becoming a member. Maybe it's the topic of tales told around the campfire or something & so the newer recruits may not have heard the tales yet but it appears as if the NW believes their main perogative is to keep the FF out. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

They no longer know how wights are made and stuff, but they still recognize them as what they 

I think that's pretty arguable. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Reread the Prologue of ASoS

Well but that all happens after the dead man came to try to kill Jeor. It's possible things have been rediscovered in between then & the fist. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the Targaryens are not 'strong' the way the wildlings have strong leaders. The latter only accept actually strong people - physically strong warriors, people able and willing to kill people, people with actual charisma and will to dominate others - as their leaders.

Sure but they haven't been presented with a dragon riding Targ either. There isn't anything a physically strong warrior could accomplish that a dragonrider couldn't. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens like any other noble house have strong and weak leaders - something wildling culture would never condone

Yes physically strong or weak but with their dragons. They still have martial prowess & could still be the strongest of the Wildlings. Who could oppose them? 

The wildlings may not like a leader like that but it wouldn't make much difference in the end. They may not respect such a person but I don't know why that's a point to the negative for them. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, one assumes even a man like Mance would be quickly pushed aside ones old age weakened both body and mind. A strong man would never follow a hairless, toothless old dotard

Absolutely he would be pushed aside if he could be, that would mean he was no longer the strongest. A strong man may have no choice but to follow a hairless, toothless old dotard if he were a dragonrider because that dragon means he is the strongest & remains so unless & until someone can oppose him. It's much the same in the 7k, like I said. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The wildlings don't give shit about hereditary rule. If the son of a man is strong enought to win the loyalty of his father's followers he might rule over them, too. If not, then he won't rule over anyone

I don't think you are understanding me. I'm not suggesting the wildlings care about hereditary rule, we know they don't. I'm saying if the strongest among them says, now my son is the ruler, as long as that strongest man stays alive & can protect his son, his son is ruler. If & until someone stronger comes along & takes him down. 

Same with Joff. Robert, who was the strongest among them, proved so by defeating the Targ's says his son is King after him. Joff gets to be King after him because there is none stronger to oppose the might Joffrey commands. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

culture does not care about this kind of coterie the lords of Westeros have. If you show weakness your followers don't say 'let me help you keep the others in line' but, 'well, you are not worth leading us, now I'll be our leader and you follow me

I'm not saying if they show weakness the followers say 'let me help you keep others in line' I'm saying as long as that man is the strongest & keeps enough people on his side he can do as he pleases in regards to ruling. As long as the King of the 7k remains in command of the most might & keeps enough people on his side he can do as he pleases in regards to ruling. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arya Stark didn't need a disguise. She needed additional cover for being a girl which would be given away when people noticed that she didn't pee standing up hence Yoren warning her to never, ever let them see her pee. Arya also hid in KL for some time before Yoren got her and no one found her despite looking.

AGOT Arya III

"I want to see my father."

The guards exchanged a glance. "I want to fuck the queen myself, for all the good it does me," the younger one said.

The older scowled. "Who's this father of yours, boy, the city ratcatcher?"

"The Hand of the King," Arya told him. 

Both men laughed, but then the older one swung his fist at her, casually, as a man would swat a dog. Arya saw the blow coming even before it began. She danced back out of the way, untouched. "I'm not a boy," she spat at them. "I'm Arya Stark of Winterfell, and if you lay a hand on me my lord father will have both your heads on spikes. If you don't believe me, fetch Jory Cassel or Vayon Poole from the Tower of the Hand." She put her hands on her hips. "Now are you going to open the gate, or do you need a clout on the ear to help your hearing?"
 

As Arya got older and she started to look more like a girl despite her aliases, men started to get lechy towards her (even Gendry crossed the line when Arya was put into a dress) and GRRM needed to move her arc away from the Riverlands for the same reason Sansa was never able to freely travel about Westeros. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

You are certainly free to think so. 

Who is we? Where is here? You don't have to talk about individuals if you don't want & that isn't what I was talking about either but I can should I like. 

The topic here is how the wildlings are worse than other groups of ASoIaF, not how individuals are bad how individuals in other groups are also bad or how other groups also suck compared to the main people.

The Dornish have the best customs/laws as a group in Westeros, the Andals are worse, the First Men are worse still, after them come the wildlings, and at the very end the Ironborn.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

When two sets of people practice essentially the same things I don't see what the point is in pointing out that the rulers of one of those peoples say these things are illegal & even occasionally punish it. That just isn't a considerable difference to me, but to each their own.

Then you are not making sense. There is no law enforcement whatsoever beyond the Wall. Rape, for instance, is a severe crime in the Seven Kingdoms. It is punished, even when done by armies in war (by Stannis, for instance).

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Fair enough but so is every woman in the 7k that is made to participate in an arranged marriage.

Obviously not to the same degree, as I pointed out multiple times already. Not to mention, you know, that noblewomen are but a tiny fraction of the female population of the Seven Kingdoms. Their problems are luxury problems whereas the shitty customs and practices of the wildlings involve all the women living beyond the Wall and quite a few in the Gifts and the North.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I understand that you say they are different but have failed to give an example of something that happens among the FF that either doesn't happen among the 7k or is punished semi regularly among the 7k. We aren't talking about one person here, we have a multitude of examples of raiding, rapes, murders, and abuse among the 7k that goes unpunished.

Again, that's irrelevant. Rape and abduction and raidings are common beyond the Wall in war & and peace whereas such things only happen in war in the Seven Kingdoms. You get the difference now, no? War means chaos and the (overall) absence of the rule law/inability to punish criminals. The wildlings do not have a rule of law. The only protection you have beyond the Wall are your family/clan - if they are thugs, you have no protection (whereas you could go to your local lord if you kin mistreats you), if they are overwhelmed and killed by a rival clan you cannot do anything about it, etc.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So? They do it when they need to & see nothing wrong with it. There need being less often over the years isn't an example of a less savage society. 

It means exactly like that. You are like a person claiming that Swiss staying neutral in war since, well, forever means they are as warmongering a society as the US.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I just read it again & I don't see anything definitively saying Will or Gared know what the Others are. When Gared says he wants to light the fire he says to keep away animals or "other" things. Could be indicative of him knowing about the Others but not definitely. 

Again, Will recognizes the Other(s) as Other(s). He obviously knows who and what they are. If the author wanted us to not know what those creatures were Will wouldn't have recognized them and there would have been a different term - the strange creature, the human-looking thing, the fairy-like being, whatever. Instead the Others are called Others by Will from the start.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We get to see some of the recruits go through the process of becoming NW members though so we know being told such isn't any formal part of becoming a member. Maybe it's the topic of tales told around the campfire or something & so the newer recruits may not have heard the tales yet but it appears as if the NW believes their main perogative is to keep the FF out. 

Sure, since they were a very real danger to the NW and the realms of men for centuries. They are right to view the wildlings as enemies because they attack and kill the rangers of the Watch. But they still know why the Wall was built to keep out the Others.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think that's pretty arguable. 

Well, then argue it. Give us a quote where the a man of the Watch is surprised that there are such creatures as Others and wights or where they claim the Others/wights are not real.

They started to doubt the Others still exist/ever existed because they were away for as long as they were, but they still know why their own ancestors built that Wall.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well but that all happens after the dead man came to try to kill Jeor. It's possible things have been rediscovered in between then & the fist. 

LOL, right. Nothing of this kind is claimed, though. Instead we do learn the Watch has three horn signals - one for rangers returning, two for wildlings, three for Others.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure but they haven't been presented with a dragon riding Targ either. There isn't anything a physically strong warrior could accomplish that a dragonrider couldn't. 

Yes physically strong or weak but with their dragons. They still have martial prowess & could still be the strongest of the Wildlings. Who could oppose them? 

You really don't seem to understand the difference there, no? A guy with a dragon isn't strong if he is afraid to use it (like King Aenys was).

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Absolutely he would be pushed aside if he could be, that would mean he was no longer the strongest. A strong man may have no choice but to follow a hairless, toothless old dotard if he were a dragonrider because that dragon means he is the strongest & remains so unless & until someone can oppose him. It's much the same in the 7k, like I said. 

You really don't get it? If the Targaryens were the same kind of savages as the wildlings are then Maegor would just killed Aenys and taken the throne as the strongest, Daemon would have killed fat and dragonless Viserys I, etc.

Rule of the strong in the wildling (and Dothraki) sense mean you only follow another man as long as he is able to personally keep you line.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think you are understanding me. I'm not suggesting the wildlings care about hereditary rule, we know they don't. I'm saying if the strongest among them says, now my son is the ruler, as long as that strongest man stays alive & can protect his son, his son is ruler. If & until someone stronger comes along & takes him down.

That wouldn't work, either, because the strongest man would continue to rule if he is the one enforcing the rule of his weakling son - the weakling would just be a pointless puppet.

38 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Same with Joff. Robert, who was the strongest among them, proved so by defeating the Targ's says his son is King after him. Joff gets to be King after him because there is none stronger to oppose the might Joffrey commands.

No, Joffrey becomes king as Robert's son because the people of the Seven Kingdoms believe in hereditary rule based on male primogeniture.

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Arya Stark didn't need a disguise. She needed additional cover for being a girl which would be given away when people noticed that she didn't pee standing up hence Yoren warning her to never, ever let them see her pee. Arya also hid in KL for some time before Yoren got her and no one found her despite looking.

The main issue is that she would be sold to Cersei if they knew she was a girl and figured out what girl exactly she was. Yoren is afraid she would be raped by the scum he took from the dungeons - and, you know, he was wrong about that considering that neither Gendry nor Hot Pie nor Jaqen ever tried to rape.

8 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

As Arya got older and she started to look more like a girl despite her aliases, men started to get lechy towards her (even Gendry crossed the line when Arya was put into a dress) and GRRM needed to move her arc away from the Riverlands for the same reason Sansa was never able to freely travel about Westeros. 

This is an inconsistent line of argumentation, pretending Westeros is actually real. It is not. If George wanted to have Sansa to travel through the Seven Kingdoms and not be raped then this would happen. Just as Arya could have continued to remain in the Seven Kingdoms and not be raped if this is what George wanted to write. There are many ways how such a story could have happened without it feeling contrived or forced within the established setting. After all, it is nowhere established that women cannot travel the roads of the Seven Kingdoms alone because they would be raped.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The main issue is that she would be sold to Cersei if they knew she was a girl and figured out what girl exactly she was. Yoren is afraid she would be raped by the scum he took from the dungeons - and, you know, he was wrong about that considering that neither Gendry nor Hot Pie nor Jaqen ever tried to rape.

:lol: 

You are aware that Gendry and Hot Pie are not the only boys/men Yoren is taking w/ him, right? He has some 30 recruits, so bringing up only Gendry and Hot Pie of all people has got to be an attempt at humour? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The topic here is how the wildlings are worse than other groups of ASoIaF, not how individuals are bad how individuals in other groups are also bad or how other groups also suck compared to the main people.

Which is exactly what I'm speaking on. I'm not speaking of individual people. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Dornish have the best customs/laws as a group in Westeros, the Andals are worse, the First Men are worse still, after them come the wildlings, and at the very end the Ironborn

Well, clearly that's debatable, hence the thread. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Then you are not making sense. There is no law enforcement whatsoever beyond the Wall. Rape, for instance, is a severe crime in the Seven Kingdoms. It is punished, even when done by armies in war (by Stannis, for instance)

We have plenty of instances where it isn't punished so pointing out the few where it is is speaking more on individualism than I was. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Obviously not to the same degree, as I pointed out multiple times already. Not to mention, you know, that noblewomen are but a tiny fraction of the female population of the Seven Kingdoms. Their problems are luxury problems whereas the shitty customs and practices of the wildlings involve all the women living beyond the Wall and quite a few in the Gifts and the North

It's in a different manner sure but considering we don't know how many wildling women are raped I don't think you can say it's not to the same degree. And yes, the nobility are subject to the arranged marriages but the small folk get raped as well & quite often it is unpunished. 

If they are getting raped I don't know how their problems are "luxury" problems. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, that's irrelevant. Rape and abduction and raidings are common beyond the Wall in war & and peace whereas such things only happen in war in the Seven Kingdoms. You get the difference now, no? 

It is only the raiding that only happens during wartime. The rapes & murders happen all the time. I understand the difference between the two peoples just fine. It's that the difference is considerable enough to call one group savages & the other not, or to say one group is very much better or worse than the other that I disagree with. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

War means chaos and the (overall) absence of the rule law/inability to punish criminals. The wildlings do not have a rule of law. The only protection you have beyond the Wall are your family/clan - if they are thugs, you have no protection (whereas you could go to your local lord if you kin mistreats you), if they are overwhelmed and killed by a rival clan you cannot do anything about it, etc.

The differences in rule of law make no big difference though. If your Lord is the one practicing the 1st night ritual you can hardly complain to him. If your kin mistreats you, you can certainly complain to your Lord but if your Lord doesn't have the strength to oppose your kin it will make no matter. If one house decimates another, like say the Freys decimating the Starks there is nothing the few remaining Starks can do. If the house doing the decimating is not on the side of the King & the King (presumably) holds more power than said house then you can complain to the King but if your house was the opposing side then what? 

If your clan is overwhelmed & killed by a rival clan you have pretty much the same options. You can try to get someone with power to support you. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

means exactly like that. You are like a person claiming that Swiss staying neutral in war since, well, forever means they are as warmongering a society as the US

Oh because the 7k haven't raised in forever?? It's not the same. The armies of the 7k are raping & pillaging throughout the whole series & saying "yeah but they haven't done it in a long time, you know, before this time" doesn't mean they don't do it or it isn't a part of their culture. It means they do it less often, sure, but they still do it & it isn't on a minute, individual scale. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, Will recognizes the Other(s) as Other(s). He obviously knows who and what they are. If the author wanted us to not know what those creatures were Will wouldn't have recognized them and there would have been a different term - the strange creature, the human-looking thing, the fairy-like being, whatever. Instead the Others are called Others by Will from the start

Yeah you're right. I read it like the narrator is telling us they are Others but I see what you are saying. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You really don't seem to understand the difference there, no? A guy with a dragon isn't strong if he is afraid to use it (like King Aenys was).

Well no, if he isn't going to use it, it does him no good unless he can effectively threaten to use it without actually carrying it out. But not all weak men would be afraid to use the dragon. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You really don't get it? If the Targaryens were the same kind of savages as the wildlings are then Maegor would just killed Aenys and taken the throne as the strongest, Daemon would have killed fat and dragonless Viserys I, etc

Well, it's hard to always tell if the message someone is conveying is the same message you are receiving, especially in written form but if you are asking me if I'm confused by your words; no, not that I'm aware of. I do, however, disagree with them. 

They aren't the exact same, I've said that. But the Targaryens, as a group, got to rule because they were the strongest group. None of the small folk had any chance of becoming King right? Why? Because they don't have the strength in armies &/or dragons that the Targ's did. Other Lords could only take the throne from the Targ's if they had more strength & could beat them in battle right? It's very comparable. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Rule of the strong in the wildling (and Dothraki) sense mean you only follow another man as long as he is able to personally keep you line

And it is the exact same with the ruling House of Westeros. They can only remain ruler if no other house is strong enough to take it from them, or if they choose not to try. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That wouldn't work, either, because the strongest man would continue to rule if he is the one enforcing the rule of his weakling son - the weakling would just be a pointless puppet

Yes, he would be ruler but only in name. Just like King Tommen, a pointless puppet, not the one truly ruling but ruler nonetheless because the strongest House/s are enforcing the rule of their puppet. 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

, Joffrey becomes king as Robert's son because the people of the Seven Kingdoms believe in hereditary rule based on male primogeniture

It's only enforceable if the King enforces it. If someone else conquers & takes the throne all the belief in hereditary rule in the world goes to the wayside. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

:lol: 

You are aware that Gendry and Hot Pie are not the only boys/men Yoren is taking w/ him, right? He has some 30 recruits, so bringing up only Gendry and Hot Pie of all people has got to be an attempt at humour? 

Well, I didn't recall the other guys they hung out with after Yoren's death. None of them seemed particularly rapey to me, especially not our good friend, Lommy Greenhands.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's in a different manner sure but considering we don't know how many wildling women are raped I don't think you can say it's not to the same degree. And yes, the nobility are subject to the arranged marriages but the small folk get raped as well & quite often it is unpunished.

Evidence, please. Rape (defined as unconsensual sex between a married or unmarried woman and some stranger) is a crime in the Seven Kingdoms, meaning rapist actually are punished. In war times, a lot things go unpunished, of course, but not in peace times. So again: Tell us on what you base the idea that rape is a crime not punished in peace times.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If they are getting raped I don't know how their problems are "luxury" problems. 

They are luxury problems in the sense that they affect only a tiny fraction of otherwise spoiled and rich women whereas every wildling woman is constantly under the threat of rape and/or being stolen by some man. Because it is quite clear that you can steal a woman again and again no matter whether she already has an 'owner' or not.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It is only the raiding that only happens during wartime. The rapes & murders happen all the time. I understand the difference between the two peoples just fine. It's that the difference is considerable enough to call one group savages & the other not, or to say one group is very much better or worse than the other that I disagree with. 

Rapes done by armies only happens in war times. In peace time rape would be seen as a crime and would be punished by the authorities like murder. And we do know that murderers like, say, Chett, do end at the Wall, don't they?

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The differences in rule of law make no big difference though. If your Lord is the one practicing the 1st night ritual you can hardly complain to him. If your kin mistreats you, you can certainly complain to your Lord but if your Lord doesn't have the strength to oppose your kin it will make no matter. If one house decimates another, like say the Freys decimating the Starks there is nothing the few remaining Starks can do. If the house doing the decimating is not on the side of the King & the King (presumably) holds more power than said house then you can complain to the King but if your house was the opposing side then what? 

You are drawing the issue again in the noble sphere. Sure, a quarrel between nobility can devolve into a private war. But if you, a commoner, rape me, a commoner, I sure as hell can go to the authorities to see you punished for your crime.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

If your clan is overwhelmed & killed by a rival clan you have pretty much the same options. You can try to get someone with power to support you.

The difference is that I don't have to be part of 'the Targaryen clan' to seek justice for being raped at KL. It is enough that I'm there. I can demand justice from the king for the crime done to me. And I will get it. Beyond the Wall nobody is going to care when a man from clan X is going to rape me on the lands of clan X when I belong to clan Y or have no clan at all.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Oh because the 7k haven't raised in forever?? It's not the same. The armies of the 7k are raping & pillaging throughout the whole series & saying "yeah but they haven't done it in a long time, you know, before this time" doesn't mean they don't do it or it isn't a part of their culture. It means they do it less often, sure, but they still do it & it isn't on a minute, individual scale. 

They are fighting civil wars - they don't do shitty wars of conquest and aggression where they dismiss the enemy as kneelers and look down on them.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well no, if he isn't going to use it, it does him no good unless he can effectively threaten to use it without actually carrying it out. But not all weak men would be afraid to use the dragon.

You still don't get it - having a dragon doesn't necessarily make you strong in the eyes of people who look to the kind of strength the wildlings or Dothraki look. Even the people of the Seven Kingdoms can smell weakness - that's why King Aenys faced rebellions despite the fact that he did have dragons and was himself a dragonrider.

48 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

They aren't the exact same, I've said that. But the Targaryens, as a group, got to rule because they were the strongest group. None of the small folk had any chance of becoming King right? Why? Because they don't have the strength in armies &/or dragons that the Targ's did. Other Lords could only take the throne from the Targ's if they had more strength & could beat them in battle right? It's very comparable.

The Targaryens as a group do not rule - the king does. The princes and princesses do not share in the rule of the king. The dragonrider Daemon had no voice in the government of his dragonless royal brother. Laena Velaryon rode the largest dragon alive and had no influence on the government of the Realm whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Evidence, please. Rape (defined as unconsensual sex between a married or unmarried woman and some stranger) is a crime in the Seven Kingdoms, meaning rapist actually are punished. In war times, a lot things go unpunished, of course, but not in peace times. So again: Tell us on what you base the idea that rape is a crime not punished in peace times

Why would rape be dependent upon the rapist being a stranger? 

I'm sorry but because it is wartimes doesn't make it ok to not be punished. 

It's said the Umbers a few others practice the 1st night right & they aren't punished. 

The whole series is during wartime but we do have a few examples off the top of my head Roose raping Ramsay's mom & the rape of Tysha - both go unpunished. 

36 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rapes done by armies only happens in war times. In peace time rape would be seen as a crime and would be punished by the authorities like murder. And we do know that murderers like, say, Chett, do end at the Wall, don't they

Sure small folk that rape & caught get punished. Rape is or should be seen as a crime during war or peace times in a civilized society. 

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You are drawing the issue again in the noble sphere. Sure, a quarrel between nobility can devolve into a private war. But if you, a commoner, rape me, a commoner, I sure as hell can go to the authorities to see you punished for your crime

It doesn't make them a wholly better group of people or a better culture if the commoner gets punished for rape but the noble person does not. They are still allowing rape. 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The difference is that I don't have to be part of 'the Targaryen clan' to seek justice for being raped at KL. It is enough that I'm there. I can demand justice from the king for the crime done to me. And I will get it. Beyond the Wall nobody is going to care when a man from clan X is going to rape me on the lands of clan X when I belong to clan Y or have no clan at all

I think that's very optimistic. Getting justice from the King is going to depend on who you are, who your said rapist is, what kind of King you have on the throne at the moment etc. It certainly is no guarantee that if you are raped & demand justice that you will get it. 

I would think there are allies among the Wildlings clans as well. If one clan wrongs another the allies of that clan will likely care. We don't have any examples of anyone reporting anything like that to Mance. Maybe that's because there has been nothing to report, maybe it's because no one there thinks it's rape, we don't have enough info there but I don't see any reason why the chances of getting justice by reporting some wrong done to you are not comparable to your chances in KL. 

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They are fighting civil wars - they don't do shitty wars of conquest and aggression where they dismiss the enemy as kneelers and look down on them

Ahh yes the honorable civil wars. So much better than the shitty wars of conquest. War is war & war is shitty. 

44 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You still don't get it - having a dragon doesn't necessarily make you strong in the eyes of people who look to the kind of strength the wildlings or Dothraki look. Even the people of the Seven Kingdoms can smell weakness - that's why King Aenys faced rebellions despite the fact that he did have dragons and was himself a dragonrider

It's you that aren't getting it. I'm not saying everyone who might have a dragon would absolutely be able to become leader of the Free folk. I'm saying a weak man with a dragon could become leader of the FF. Yes, there are situations in which it wouldn't happen, one being, obviously, if they weren't willing to use the dragon. But physical strength would not be necessary in order to rule the FF if they have something else to level the playing field - like a dragon. 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens as a group do not rule - the king does. The princes and princesses do not share in the rule of the king. 

No they don't share rule. My comparison here is: Any individual Targ ruler or the Targ's as a group or any King of the IT = Mance. The rest of the nobility & the small folk = the rest of the wildlings. 

They get to rule because they are the strongest. In one case it's in physical strength & combat skills, in the other it's martial prowess & allies. The rest of them listen because they are weaker & there is essentially nothing they can do about it.  There are differences along the way but the end result is the same: the strong take from the weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Arya Stark didn't need a disguise. She needed additional cover for being a girl which would be given away when people noticed that she didn't pee standing up hence Yoren warning her to never, ever let them see her pee. Arya also hid in KL for some time before Yoren got her and no one found her despite looking.

AGOT Arya III

"I want to see my father."

The guards exchanged a glance. "I want to fuck the queen myself, for all the good it does me," the younger one said.

The older scowled. "Who's this father of yours, boy, the city ratcatcher?"

"The Hand of the King," Arya told him. 

Both men laughed, but then the older one swung his fist at her, casually, as a man would swat a dog. Arya saw the blow coming even before it began. She danced back out of the way, untouched. "I'm not a boy," she spat at them. "I'm Arya Stark of Winterfell, and if you lay a hand on me my lord father will have both your heads on spikes. If you don't believe me, fetch Jory Cassel or Vayon Poole from the Tower of the Hand." She put her hands on her hips. "Now are you going to open the gate, or do you need a clout on the ear to help your hearing?"
 

As Arya got older and she started to look more like a girl despite her aliases, men started to get lechy towards her (even Gendry crossed the line when Arya was put into a dress) and GRRM needed to move her arc away from the Riverlands for the same reason Sansa was never able to freely travel about Westeros. 

I feel it should be pointed out that in Arya's case she wasn't wandering around randomly. She was traveling in the company of criminals, some of which we know have already been convicted of rape and sentenced to the Wall.

Even in modern society, if I had the misfortune of traveling on a bus with a violent murderer on his way to prison I'd be wary. That doesn't mean that the general condition of today's society is one that tolerates rape. Caution is not necessarily social commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Why would rape be dependent upon the rapist being a stranger?

Because I doubt that family-internal sexual abuse is considered a crime in Westeros. Rape is something strangers do to 'your women'.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's said the Umbers a few others practice the 1st night right & they aren't punished. 

Roose claims that this is so. Do you take Roose at his word? He had to murder people and cut out tongues to ensure he did not get punished. Beyond the Wall there are no Rickard Starks who might come to your rescue if you get word to them.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The whole series is during wartime but we do have a few examples off the top of my head Roose raping Ramsay's mom & the rape of Tysha - both go unpunished.

Those involve both abuse of power - I'm talking about average people.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It doesn't make them a wholly better group of people or a better culture if the commoner gets punished for rape but the noble person does not. They are still allowing rape. 

And who the hell said that the Seven Kingdoms were a perfect society. Yet they still much better than the shit show the wildlings call culture.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I think that's very optimistic. Getting justice from the King is going to depend on who you are, who your said rapist is, what kind of King you have on the throne at the moment etc. It certainly is no guarantee that if you are raped & demand justice that you will get it. 

You will get some form of justice ... never said you would like what you get.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would think there are allies among the Wildlings clans as well. If one clan wrongs another the allies of that clan will likely care. We don't have any examples of anyone reporting anything like that to Mance. Maybe that's because there has been nothing to report, maybe it's because no one there thinks it's rape, we don't have enough info there but I don't see any reason why the chances of getting justice by reporting some wrong done to you are not comparable to your chances in KL. 

LOL, Mance isn't a king. He is just some sort of warlord. He cannot interfere with the internal matters of the clan chiefs. They are free folk, and do as they please. This isn't a hierarchal society.

People with connections might be able to avenge themselves with the help of others. But that then blood feud and mafia kind of justice ... i.e. the shit show primitive savages call justice.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Ahh yes the honorable civil wars. So much better than the shitty wars of conquest. War is war & war is shitty. 

And LOL again. You do know that the wildlings both wage wars of conquest against their neighbors as well as civil wars amongst themselves ... which again makes the people of the Seven Kingdoms better and the wildlings worse because the Seven Kingdoms do not do the former. They, very rarely, do have civil wars.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's you that aren't getting it. I'm not saying everyone who might have a dragon would absolutely be able to become leader of the Free folk. I'm saying a weak man with a dragon could become leader of the FF. Yes, there are situations in which it wouldn't happen, one being, obviously, if they weren't willing to use the dragon. But physical strength would not be necessary in order to rule the FF if they have something else to level the playing field - like a dragon.

I'm not sure where you are getting this kind of fantasies, but the case of Nettles actually does indicate that a dragon does not make you a wildling queen. The girl may have been revered by the Burned Men, but she did not lead them nor any other clan in the Mountains of the Moon.

There is more to being a leader of people than just riding a dragon.

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

They get to rule because they are the strongest. In one case it's in physical strength & combat skills, in the other it's martial prowess & allies. The rest of them listen because they are weaker & there is essentially nothing they can do about it.  There are differences along the way but the end result is the same: the strong take from the weak. 

If you aren't strong yourself you don't get any allies in the wildling world. That's the issue. Mance is what he is because he is a fucking superman. He has great skills at arms, he had great charisma, he is attractive, he can sing, he is everything a man in the culture in which he lives wants in a leader. That's why they follow him. Men not fitting that bill don't become wildling kings.

In a feudal society people do what the big guy says regardless of his personal qualities because his father was the big guy before him, and they have been trained and brought up to accept that this is the order of things. But the order of things beyond the Wall is fundamentally different. The people there are brought up to not give a shit about the fathers and grandfathers of the people they meet.

Beyond the Wall a dragonrider would get stabbed to death in his sleep and his dragon would be slain if he wasn't the kind of leadership material the wildlings respect and admire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...