Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alyn Oakenfist

Is Ygritte a rapist?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Heh, I think you're dodging here. Using a breeding program to minimize medical issues is eugenics, but its not morally reprehensible.

It is an infringement on human rights to arbitrarily decide who should or shouldn't procreate with whom. And we actually only do that to those closely related people. We don't say people carrying hemophilia shouldn't procreate, we don't demand that children with birth defects have to be aborted, etc.

25 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Purposely ruining your children's chances of health/survival/possibilities towards a full life etc, is child abuse. If you need to resort to a eugenics way of avoiding it, I think it'd be morally corrupt not to. Not because you and your sister don't have a right to to what you wan't but because you'd be cruel. 

Well, but it isn't that easy, is it? I mean, you actually need the way to know prior to birth that a child is, what, suffering from some horrible disease so that you don't want to have it. We are talking about people who want to have children, after all.

A slight increase in risk for a couple of things - and that's all you get when you are not from a strongly inbred population already - isn't enough to demand that they don't have children.

But it is double standard I was arguing against - that for closely related people it is a crime to have sex in many countries, whereas unrelated people who know they have a high risk of transferring hereditary diseases can have children. It might be morally wrong for them to do so, but it is not considered a criminal offense when they try or do - unlike with incest which is a criminal offense in many places regardless whether there is offspring or not.

I mean, the double standard is pretty glaring. Did anybody check your genetic makeup before you had sex with somebody? Or mine? To ensure that if we had children with our sex partners - accidentally or intentionally - the resulting child would not suffer from any hereditary issues we may or may not be aware were a thing in our family tree?

I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sigella said:

:D Good strong westboro baptist-vibes there pal :D  

R2D is right and it has nothing to do with being a fanatical Christian.

Imagine if incest was legalized.

A 9 year old has it in his head that he wants to marry his sister. The power dynamic allows him to groom his younger sister towards agreeing to a marriage in the future, possibly abusing her into it. Now its 10 years in the future and they're both 'consenting adults' who want to get married. See the problem? That's a major part of why it isn't legal.

My own family member had their life ruined because of incest. So it would be great if people didn't act like not liking it makes you a close minded, bigoted Christian.

Edited by S. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, S. D said:

R2D is right and it has nothing to do with being a fanatical Christian.

Imagine if incest was legalized.

A 9 year old has it in his head that he wants to marry his sister. When he gets older, the power dynamic allows him to groom his younger sister towards agreeing to a marriage in the future, possibly abusing her into it. Now its 10 years in the future and they're both 'consenting adults' who want to get married. See the problem? That's a major part of why it isn't legal.

My own family member had their life ruined because of incest. So it would be great if people didn't act like not liking it makes you a close minded, bigoted Christian.

I'd say parents should have not let it happen in your example.

Also I doubt a situation with consenting adults would ruin lives.

Abuse is another ballpark and I suspect you are ignoring the line between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sigella said:

I'd say parents should have not let it happen in your example.

Also I doubt a situation with consenting adults would ruin lives.

Abuse is another ballpark and I suspect you are ignoring the line between the two.

Parents can't be around 24×7. They have to go to work and meet people. They might even leave the abusive sibling in charge.

The problem with consent is that it's very hard to prove that there is genuine consent. . If incest wasn't taboo, there would be much more child abuse cases.

Edited by S. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, S. D said:

Parents can't be around 24×7. They have to go to work and meet people. They might even leave the abusive sibling in charge.

The problem with consent is that it's very hard to prove that there is genuine consent. If incest wasn't taboo, there would be much more child abuse cases.

Well the taboo also helps the abusers, with victims preferring suffering in silence than live with shame and stigma.

Nobody is arguing for abuse.

Edited by Sigella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Well the taboo also helps the abusers, with victims preferring suffering in silence than live with shame and stigma.

Nobody is arguing for abuse.

Didn't mean to imply you were, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, S. D said:

A 9 year old has it in his head that he wants to marry his sister. The power dynamic allows him to groom his younger sister towards agreeing to a marriage in the future, possibly abusing her into it. Now its 10 years in the future and they're both 'consenting adults' who want to get married. See the problem? That's a major part of why it isn't legal.

That kind of strawman thing has nothing to do with the history of incest prosecution laws. You do know that it is not just not allowed that incestuous people marry but that incestuous vaginal sex as such is considered a criminal offense in many countries, right?

Historically, incest laws go back to religious taboos which made their way into secular laws and, at times, people pulled out other justifications for them like the one you pulled out there. But that's not what the people said who instituted such laws hundreds or thousands of years ago.

As for the strawman argument here - no nine-year-old is going to groom a younger sibling for future marriage. That is ridiculous. Nine-year-olds aren't even sexually active.

But even if they were and if that happened then we cannot really treat 'groomed people' as retards or imbeciles - if I want to marry my abuser/rapist as a grown-up person then I can do that. Society cannot stop me - and should not be able to stop me unless you want to take away the right of self-determination from the victims of abuse or other crimes.

The way to deal with such grooming practices and abuse would be to raise awareness in people about how it happens, how people around you can notice and stop it, etc. It also involves to educate children about sex as early and as thoroughly as possible, so they can themselves notice when a family member or another person they trust does something inappropriate to/with them.

In your example the only thing that may be stopped is a official marriage - but the groomed sibling still can live with the abusive sibling, have sex with him/her, etc. In our day and age marriage isn't really necessary to have and maintain a romantic/sexual relationship.

I mean, in certain sense this whole thing is akin to institute prohibition because some people become alcoholics, or perhaps even a better example: a ban on cars because some drivers will intentionally or unintentionally kill pedestrians and other car drivers. Society has to deal with that.

The idea that society needs incest prosecution laws to prevent incestuous abuse is not very well founded - and neither is the idea that if those laws were overturned everybody would suddenly want to bang a close family member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 5:30 AM, Nagini's Neville said:

Dany was sold into marriage at 13 to a guy, who didn't treat her like a person in the beginning and her first sexual experiences were so painful and horrible, that she considered suicide over it. 

Therefore and her abusive upbringing I'm not sure she has a completely healthy relationship to sex or romantic relationships in general. I always felt like part of her attraction to Daario was, that she knew he was dangerous and not a good person. I feel like, because she grew up so powerless and helpless as a young woman she is now attracted to powerful people, potentially violent people.

um she had a good sexual experience. her thoughts of suicide were not of the sex but the lifestyle that was rough on her body from riding all day. she is in love with Drogo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 7:05 PM, Thunder Bunny-3000 said:

um she had a good sexual experience. her thoughts of suicide were not of the sex but the lifestyle that was rough on her body from riding all day. she is in love with Drogo. 

The fact that people are still arguing that Dany wasn't raped goes to show how toxic some of these threads are. Surely we can all agree in 2020 that it is possible to rape your spouse/romantic partner. Resigning yourself to the fact that someone is going to have sex regardless of whether you want it or not and trying to make it as bearable as possible for yourself is NOT consent. Whether Dany eventually loves Drogo or not is besides the point, and a completely different discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

The fact that people are still arguing that Dany wasn't raped goes to show how toxic some of these threads are. Surely we can all agree in 2020 that it is possible to rape your spouse/romantic partner. Resigning yourself to the fact that someone is going to have sex regardless of whether you want it or not and trying to make it as bearable as possible for yourself is NOT consent. Whether Dany eventually loves Drogo or not is besides the point, and a completely different discussion.

Danny just wasn't raped. not by the standards of asoiaf. sure in 2020 it would be but in her case absolutely not.  She never once thinks of any of her sexual experiences as such and never thinks ill of Drogo. marriage is political not romantic. in Danny's case it seems to be a bit of both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not 1:0 case. If a woman gives herself to a man she does not like and does not want, but he protects her from physical threat and/or feeds her... does it make him a rapist? Economic duress is still duress I think. You can always choose... to die. Similar with Ygritte and Jon. Cannot consider such phenomenon as some objective, unchanging idea, independent of context, time, law, psychological attitude etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

huh? What was wrong with the Arys/Arianne scene?

His enormous sense of guilt I guess. He did not want to do it so much, that it seems to me he was raped too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, broken one said:

His enormous sense of guilt I guess. He did not want to do it so much, that it seems to me he was raped too.

There was no rape....Arianne did not force him, she just tempted him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, R2D said:

There was no rape....Arianne did not force him, she just tempted him.

she forced him with irresistible temptation XD

but more seriously - compare his consensual hangover to reflections of "raped" Jon.

Edited by broken one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, broken one said:

she forced him with irresistible temptation XD

but more seriously - compare his consensual hangover to reflections of "raped" Jon.

Arys wasn't choosing sex over death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, R2D said:

Arys wasn't choosing sex over death.

Ygritte was not threating Jon with death.

According to Polish law there are 3 means of rape: physical force, threat and deceit.

Arianne tricked him with marriage and other rubbish. BADUM tsssss! I told you, he was raped.

 

Anyway, Arianne's deed was much worse than Ygritte's, on any level I can think of.

 

Edited by broken one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, broken one said:

Ygritte was not threating Jon with death.

According to Polish law there are 3 means of rape: physical force, threat and deceit.

Arianne tricked him with marriage and other rubbish. BADUM tsssss! I told you, he was raped.

 

I think rape is thrown around too easily. 

When I was a freshman in university they told us if you have consensual intercourse and one of the participants regrets it in the morning they can go to the dean and get that person expelled with a record of sexual misconduct or even rape. 

Then some one asked what if both of the participants felt guilty, and we were told whoever got to the deans office first gets right of victimhood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...