Is Ygritte a rapist?

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I'm not stretching anything. I never said anything at all about what a threatening person's punishment would/should be. I only said that people can make a choice to die instead of doing whatever or having whatever done to them. That's all.

I'm trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.

Because it sounds like victim-blaming. 

Unless the victim literally fights they're entire way through their assault they’ve consented to their treatment.

What exactly would you call it when a only has sex with someone because they've been threatened with pain and death?

Because rape by definition requires a lack of consent for it to be such.

Are you seriously telling a person being threatened with pain and death into having sex isn't being raped? 

8 hours ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

What exactly am I doing? I'm expressing my opinion in a discussion, here on this discussion forum.

Yes, and I'm trying to make clear why such a stance is wrong. It ignores basic human psychology, biology, and lacks a sense of empathy to the abused. Where they are ”choosing” to be abused by virtue of not killing themselves to stop it.

No different from Victorian telling the frail Maestor to try killing the men who've been sexually abusing him. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.

I have said nothing that resembles in any way what you are interpreting.

 

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because it sounds like victim-blaming. 

Unless the victim literally fights they're entire way through their assault they’ve consented to their treatment.

First, I never blamed anybody in anything I said. 

Second, "consent" is a completely different thing than "choice". I said that a victim has a choice, not that they consent.

 

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What exactly would you call it when a only has sex with someone because they've been threatened with pain and death?

Because rape by definition requires a lack of consent for it to be such.

Are you seriously telling a person being threatened with pain and death into having sex isn't being raped? 

I would call it rape. And NO I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU WRITE HERE. What I actually said does not resemble this at all. You are completely wrongly misrepresenting what I said and you need to stop doing it right now.

 

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes, and I'm trying to make clear why such a stance is wrong. It ignores basic human psychology, biology, and lacks a sense of empathy to the abused. Where they are ”choosing” to be abused by virtue of not killing themselves to stop it.

No different from Victorian telling the frail Maestor to try killing the men who've been sexually abusing him. 

Except that "such a stance" is NOT MY STANCE. Not in any way, shape or form.

Don't bother replying.

[The Fresh PtwP]

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This seems to be victim-blaming man.

The old ”You put yourself in a situation.” is never a good defense for why someone who is made to have against their will wasn't truly sexually assaulted.

Being a spy does not mean one is asking to be raped.

When Jon has sex with Ygritte he does so thinking if he refuses he could/would be tortured and/or killed.

It is rape when a person does not give consent.

Jon having been a spy does not mean he's effectively given up all his rights as a human being. 

A woman in a miniskirt who hitchhikes is no less raped by the man who picks her up, than a woman who is assaulted in her own home.

Or literally most of the slaves in history. 

They could have chose death and torture -so could they really be called slaves? 

Hell could slavery even exist using such logic?

What is difference between the times Jon refuses her before, (and none of the wildlings care) and the "rape"? The difference is Jon lied and made a hostile move towards Mance and because of that his loyalty was questioned.

The situation isn't his doing, but the threat that allowed this to happen kind of is. 

[Corvo the Crow]

Hey hey hey! Jon was still a minor at the time, even by westerosi standards(16 is when you come of age) he was a child and Ygritte was an adult and several years older than him.

So no consent there, sorry. She’s a pedophile and rapist. She all but blackmails him into sexual relations as well. 

She is quite the sex offender. 

[Lord Varys]

@The Ned's Little Girl

Can you elaborate on your view that death (suicide or goading others into killing you?) is a better choice in certain situations? I'd say that this doesn't make any sense to me since death is coming no matter what we do whereas surviving means you still have the potential/prospect to enjoy life/overcome your issues. If you are very depressed or suffering from a painful disease that's going to kill you, anyway, then killing yourself might be a great idea ... but in any other case it doesn't really make sense.

What makes your statement very problematic in this particular context is that people can (and apparently did) get the impression that in a case of sexual assault/rape it might be preferrable for the victim to kill herself/let herself be killed rather than giving in - which is pretty horrible if you ask me.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Hey hey hey! Jon was still a minor at the time, even by westerosi standards(16 is when you come of age) he was a child and Ygritte was an adult and several years older than him.

So no consent there, sorry. She’s a pedophile and rapist. She all but blackmails him into sexual relations as well. 

She is quite the sex offender. 

Nah, Jon was no longer a child. He wasn't yet a man grown, but a youth at the very cusp of manhood, old enough to swear his vows to become a sworn brother of the Night's Watch (Jaime also became a KG at fifteen, and Daemon Blackfyre a knight at twelve).

Still, she was a sexually experienced woman knowing how to get into the pants of men she wanted. But it is the blackmail aspect that makes this an ugly thing. Even more so in light of the fact that Ygritte likely knew/figured out that Jon never really wanted to join them and was on some kind of secret mission there ... and she basically used sex to corrupt him, to force him into a conflict to choose between her and his vows/mission.

17 hours ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

What is difference between the times Jon refuses her before, (and none of the wildlings care) and the "rape"? The difference is Jon lied and made a hostile move towards Mance and because of that his loyalty was questioned.

The situation isn't his doing, but the threat that allowed this to happen kind of is. 

Jon is in an impossible situation here. He tries to fulfill his mission and stay alive and keep his vows but in all that it is clear that he doesn't want to complicate things by having sex or fall in love. He also doesn't want to father any bastards. And this is more than enough to make this a case where he wasn't able to give consent.

You can compare this to how Jon deals with beautiful women once he is in a position of power ... he does not take them into his bed despite the fact that it seems he could have easily fucked both Melisandre and Val.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You can compare this to how Jon deals with beautiful women once he is in a position of power ... he does not take them into his bed despite the fact that it seems he could have easily fucked both Melisandre and Val.

Melisandre probably, seemed to be her goal after all, but what would be the result of union would have been in her control, so understandable Jon wouldn't want that. When it comes to Val I disagree. She is very proud, still grieving for Jarl and loyal to the free folk and she wouldn't just slept with Jon, just because he wanted to. He would have had to rape her and Jon is for sure not a rapist.

[Peach King]

3 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Hey hey hey! Jon was still a minor at the time, even by westerosi standards(16 is when you come of age) he was a child and Ygritte was an adult and several years older than him.

So no consent there, sorry. She’s a pedophile and rapist. She all but blackmails him into sexual relations as well. 

She is quite the sex offender. 

Are you serious? Jon was 16 when he slept with Ygritte.

To answer OP, yes I think Ygritte did rape Jon, if we're going by a strict modern definition of the term. However.....and I know this is going to sound awful, but I don't care very much. Jon did want to sleep with Ygritte, and he also enjoyed it, once he got over his guilt about his vows. If Jon wasn't a crow it would be just a normal seduction and romance. In this series where marriage is basically institutionalised sexual abuse, Jon and Ygritte don't come off as very problematic to me. And I like their relationship. Sorry.

[Lord Varys]

54 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Melisandre probably, seemed to be her goal after all, but what would be the result of union would have been in her control, so understandable Jon wouldn't want that. When it comes to Val I disagree. She is very proud, still grieving for Jarl and loyal to the free folk and she wouldn't just slept with Jon, just because he wanted to. He would have had to rape her and Jon is for sure not a rapist.

Well, the Val business is open to debate, but Jon doesn't even try with either woman, no? He recognizes their beauty but doesn't hang out with them, doesn't make a move, doesn't try anything. He doesn't even seem to grieve for Ygritte in a strong way, nor does he seem to have a strong sex drive (there is no masturbation going on in his chapters, unlike Tyrion's in ADwD).

In fact, I find the idea that Jon might about to be discover that he also likes boys not that far-fetched. Satin is a person he chooses to be his new steward and squire, and I would find it rather interesting if it turned out that Jon was bisexual or at least willing to explore that kind of thing. I guess his death is likely going to cut that thing short ... but then, it might turn out that Satin will be the guy caring for the corpse and eventually the resurrected Jon Snow. Who knows what's going to develop from that?

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@The Ned's Little Girl

Can you elaborate on your view that death (suicide or goading others into killing you?) is a better choice in certain situations? I'd say that this doesn't make any sense to me since death is coming no matter what we do whereas surviving means you still have the potential/prospect to enjoy life/overcome your issues. If you are very depressed or suffering from a painful disease that's going to kill you, anyway, then killing yourself might be a great idea ... but in any other case it doesn't really make sense.

What makes your statement very problematic in this particular context is that people can (and apparently did) get the impression that in a case of sexual assault/rape it might be preferrable for the victim to kill herself/let herself be killed rather than giving in - which is pretty horrible if you ask me.

No. I cannot "elaborate" on something that I did not say.

I did not say it was a "better choice" or a worse choice. I said nothing about the quality of the choice. I said nothing about which choice "make sense" or not. I said nothing about which choice might be "preferable". I only said that there is always a choice there that someone can make.

The only thing that "makes [my] statement very problematic" is when a bunch of crap that I never said is conjured out of thin air and then attributed to me. As you also did right here. Every single thing that you attributed to me in your post here is flat-out wrong, because I NEVER said any of it.

I'm going to repeat this: I only said that there is always a choice that someone can make. That's all. Period. The end. 

Next time someone wants to @ me over this: provide direct quotes of me saying what you allege or shut the hell up.

Edited to add: I don't know why the strikethroughs are showing but I didn't put them there and I'm not trying to cross anything out in this post. I mean every word of it.

[Lord Varys]

Just now, The Ned's Little Girl said:

No. I cannot "elaborate" on something that I did not say.

I did not say it was a "better choice" or a worse choice. I said nothing about the quality of the choice. I said nothing about which choice "make sense" or not. I said nothing about which choice might be "preferable". I only said that there is always a choice there that someone can make.

The only thing that "makes [my] statement very problematic" is when a bunch of crap that I never said is conjured out of thin air and then attributed to me. As you also did right here. Every single thing that you attributed to me in your post here is flat-out wrong, because I NEVER said any of it.

I'm going to repeat this: I only said that there is always a choice that someone can make. That's all. Period. The end. 

Next time someone wants to @ me over this: provide direct quotes of me saying what you allege or shut the hell up.

Getting killed or killing yourself under duress is never a choice. It is the opposite of choice.

But then indulge us - in what scenario do you thinking killing yourself or being killed by somebody else is a (reasonable) choice? I don't understand that idea.

[Nagini's Neville]

13 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Are you serious? Jon was 16 when he slept with Ygritte.

I think he was 15, but yeah, not a child anymore. A youth almost an adult.

[Peach King]

8 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I think he was 15, but yeah, not a child anymore. A youth almost an adult.

He was born in 283 AC, and Storm took place in 299 AC.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Getting killed or killing yourself under duress is never a choice. It is the opposite of choice.

I disagree.

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But then indulge us - in what scenario do you thinking killing yourself or being killed by somebody else is a (reasonable) choice? I don't understand that idea.

Again with the mischaracterization. Again attributing to me what I never said. I made no judgement on whether a choice might be "reasonable" or not. I'm only saying that a choice exists, always. 

It was a simple answer to a question asked up-thread. I'm really not interested in further discussion of it. The only reason I'm responding now is because I don't like people mischaracterizing what I said into things I didn't say and making stuff up. It's dishonest and I won't stand for it.

[Nagini's Neville]

11 minutes ago, Peach King said:

He was born in 283 AC, and Storm took place in 299 AC.

I thought, that happened in Clash- so my apologies! Also thought it at one point said Ygritte was 4 years older and she was 19 as far as I remember. But yeah, could be mistaken.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:52 PM, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I do.

I also believe there are situations where choosing death is definitely the better choice.

 

1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I did not say it was a "better choice" or a worse choice

To be fair you did say it was sometimes the better choice. I'm not trying to get on you, I think @Lord Varys is genuinely trying to understand your stance. 

[Peach King]

On 2/20/2020 at 2:14 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd say there are quite a few such - Asha and Qarl in ADwD is a very sex-positive scene of a couple living their sexual fantasies, Ned and Cat in AGoT, Arianne and Arys in AFfC are very consensual, too, Daario and Dany in ADwD, Roose and Walda (although we never see them).

Isn't Fat Walda like 15 and Roose 30?  And there's also the legal power he holds over her as her husband.

@Nagini's Neville The wiki says she's 3 years older.

[Nagini's Neville]

31 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Isn't Fat Walda like 15 and Roose 30?  And there's also the legal power he holds over her as her husband.

@Nagini's Neville The wiki says she's 3 years older.

well, Sansa is 12/13 and Tyrion is 26. So the same rules don't apply for girls obviously 

okay, dont base my knowledge of wiki usually. maybe I find it in the text, than i quote it, but yeah wiki is probably right.

Edit: @Peach King guess you are right. He is 16 and she is 19

[The Ned's Little Girl]

33 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

To be fair you did say it was sometimes the better choice. I'm not trying to get on you, I think @Lord Varys is genuinely trying to understand your stance. 

Thank you for quoting me instead of making stuff up and saying I said it! 

You are right; I did say that. (And I do think that, actually.) But, I'm not going to get into the weeds about it and have specific scenarios picked apart as to whether something is moral or not, reasonable or not. I just don't want to go there.

[Nagini's Neville]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the Val business is open to debate, but Jon doesn't even try with either woman, no? He recognizes their beauty but doesn't hang out with them, doesn't make a move, doesn't try anything. He doesn't even seem to grieve for Ygritte in a strong way, nor does he seem to have a strong sex drive (there is no masturbation going on in his chapters, unlike Tyrion's in ADwD).

firstly why would Jon now suddenly want to break his oaths, that mean so much to him again, without the pressure/(temptation) from someone basically forcing him. As we have already established- he had no choice. He doesn't try, because he also didn't try with Ygritte. It is not his goal.

Also why would not wanting to father a bastard not be important to him anymore suddenly?

He can't trust, doesn't even like Meli. Ned wouldn't have had sex with Cersei. Same goes for Jon with Meli. He likes Val, but I think his oath, especially now that he is the Lord Commander is too important to him to try, that's after all the main rason he doesn't want WF IMO, it's not so much, because it belongs to Sansa. I think he very well understands, that that only means it belongs to the Lannisters. But he has sworn an oath to the old gods to forsake all of that.

I also think cold, war, constant stress, responsibility and hard work will have an impact on your sex drive. I also don't think, just because GRRM doesn't show every character masturbating, we shouldn't assume, they all aren't doing it in general. Just like he also doesn't show us them using the toilet all the time.

Him having Tyrion doing it at the moment, that he does, should tells us IMO, that Tyrion doesn't have the most healthy relationship with sex (not that it's unhealthy to masturbate), but that he tries to compensate a lot with it. He deals with his negative emotions and when he is actually longing for love an acceptance through sex. Not uncommon, however for someone, who was sexually abused as a child/teenager.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, I find the idea that Jon might about to be discover that he also likes boys not that far-fetched. Satin is a person he chooses to be his new steward and squire, and I would find it rather interesting if it turned out that Jon was bisexual or at least willing to explore that kind of thing. I guess his death is likely going to cut that thing short ... but then, it might turn out that Satin will be the guy caring for the corpse and eventually the resurrected Jon Snow. Who knows what's going to develop from that?

i didn't read it like that, but would totally dig it. And maybe that's where GRRM is going, apparently there are a lot of readers, who got those vibes, so it could very well be intended that way.

But Jon being bi or pan IMO wouldn't be the reason for him not to try something with Mel or Val

[Nagini's Neville]

26 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Thank you for quoting me instead of making stuff up and saying I said it! 

You are right; I did say that. (And I do think that, actually.) But, I'm not going to get into the weeds about it and have specific scenarios picked apart as to whether something is moral or not, reasonable or not. I just don't want to go there.

I totally understand your reasoning, when it comes to a "kill/hurt a child (or someone innocent) or be killed yourself" scenario. That's also why I maintain, that Tyrion is completely himself responsible and to blame for how he acted towards Sansa on their wedding night. But I don't, when it comes to a "be raped or killed" scenario. But I also don't remember you saying that, so I get your point.