Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alyn Oakenfist

Is Ygritte a rapist?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:
10 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I think it's supposed to be very uncomfortable to read, especially given how it's supposed to be Cersei's bitterness bottling up and finally spilling over. It's her turning herself from the victim of Robert's rapes to becoming basically Robert, or at least trying to.

I would go one step further; turning  herself into something she always wanted to be; a man. 

Yeah, you're right. I think saying that she wanted to turn into Robert also works as Robert was always this hyper-masculine ideal.

41 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

Serious counter question: Do people really think Ygritte would've told Mance if Jon and her didn't have sex?

I think it's pretty irrelevant. What matters is what Jon thought, and even if he thought it unlikely he probably couldn't take the chance. As such consent doesn't exist in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, dubious consent at the very least. I dont think GRRM fully understands or is interested in exploring male rape as a concept in this instance though. It was the same with Dany and Drogo, person with power uses foreplay, and its all ok apparently! Even though the whole situation is coercive and they'd rather not, but they eventually ~fall in love~ Just icky overall. 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Yes, dubious consent at the very least. I dont think GRRM fully understands or is interested in exploring male rape as a concept in this instance though. It was the same with Dany and Drogo, person with power uses foreplay, and its all ok apparently! Even though the whole situation is coercive and they'd rather not, but they eventually ~fall in love~ Just icky overall. 

Probably not-rape in general is something that is often on periphery of the story, where the affects on the victims isn’t explored. And something for lesser characters to experience. I find it odd for instance Arya keeps finding herself in vulnerable positions surrounded by or vulnerable to the worst sort of men but never experiences sexual abuse. Take her trek to castle black. She, even if disguised as a boy, is a small child surrounded by many men who are rapists. She's not even seen as a special individual. 

It’s likely more than not someone would try to abuse her. 

But no one even seriously comes close to it.

 

Though I have to say Victorien’s rape of the maester does demonstrate the reason much on male on male rape.

Its toxic-masculinity.

Victorien and his crew prides themselves on living up to this ideal of manliness. Victorien literally murders the love of his life because of the fact his brother had sex with her or even possibly raped her. The paranoia of being seen as not a “real”  man by his society is strong he is even willing to sacrifice those he loves to avoid it. 

They base their entire worth on living on it. 
The meastor who was abused didn’t just look feminine. He looked feminine and seemed happy.

For this sin of failing to “be a man” and not showing proper revulsion to his existence, Victorien and his crew punish the Maestor by treating him like something every man should labor not to be-a woman.

As much as many people like to think feminists(a lot of whom who’ve done more to actually address the problem of male than many of their protractors),   and beta-cuck soy boys are the  threats to men’s sense masculinity it’s often other men who totally revere the traditional standards of manliness in their society who seek to attack/abuse other men for not being “manly” enough. And see a lot of the abuse on men as being justified-after all they are men right? They're supposed to be strong ones, them being so weak proves that they’re  a deviant who deserves it or was asking to be abused. 

In Victorian’s mind the maestor had choices in response to his abuse-kill himself, try to kill the crewmembers and certainly die in the process, or endure it. Only the first two is something a real man would do.

On 2/20/2020 at 3:36 AM, SeanF said:

In fairness to Ygritte, she's a person of her times and place (as we all are).  Her society has dubious notions about what constitutes consent to sex, and what constitutes legitimate violence.

I certainly don't think she's a rapist by the standards of her time and place. By modern standards, I'd view her more as a harasser than a rapist.

And, bear in mind the story is written by a man, and most men do fantasise about being pursued by a woman who won't take no for an answer.


Many cultures, including the one found in the US put women more as a passive role in terms of romantic/sexual entanglements. 
Not to say they’re are no men who have rape fantasies.

There are of course, but I don’t think that’s true. 
There are women who do have such fantasies.

If a person  told you either to fuck them, or that their friends will kill you do you honestly see what is being stated a choice?

On 2/19/2020 at 10:38 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Given how much he tells to himself he doesn't want it it's pretty clear how much consent he gives. Now you might argue that he is more deluding himself, but that doesn't really matter in the whole consent thing.

I mean yeah, whether or not Jon deep down wanted to bang Ygritte that's really not the issue.

The issue was he under the threat of immediate violence if he did not have sex?

He was. He had sex with Ygritte under the literal threat of death and/or torture.

It doesn't matter if he secretly desired her.

Consent here was not truly given.

That is the only thing that matters.

Interest does not equal consent.

The idea of them ”secretly wanting it” has been used to excuse the sexual abuse of others way too many times.

Same with Gilly and Sam quite frankly.

Sam is not obligated to sleep with Gilly, and Gilly herself has no right to force herself on the boy because she thinks he’ll like it, or his reasons for refusing are unreasonable. 
 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 4:30 AM, Nagini's Neville said:

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.

And he’s hot, young, daring and exotic. He’s good for a meaningless romp and since neither of the two actually sees it more than that. Daario won’t change for Dany, and Dany knows Daario would lose interest in her if she wasn’t a dragon-queen. 

I’d say it’s fine.

7 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yeah, you're right. I think saying that she wanted to turn into Robert also works as Robert was always this hyper-masculine ideal.

I think it's pretty irrelevant. What matters is what Jon thought, and even if he thought it unlikely he probably couldn't take the chance. As such consent doesn't exist in this scenario.

Yeah, especially when he was younger. 
When Cersi has sex with a woman for the first time one must note how the act itself doesn’t excite her sexually. 
It’s entirely about power. The power of dominating a woman like a man would. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If a person  told you either to fuck them, or that their friends will kill you do you honestly see what is being stated a choice?

I do.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Consent here was not truly given.

That is the only thing that matters.

Interest does not equal consent.

exactly, otherwise rape within a relationship wouldn't be possible 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I do.

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

I disagree that if the other choice is death that there is any true choice. 

 I do understand what you are saying & agree to an extent - but I also think that would be an individual thing to decide; if death is the better choice. I, personally, don't think I could judge another person as right or wrong for picking the opposite of their own death, no matter what the other choice is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree that if the other choice is death that there is any true choice. 

 I do understand what you are saying & agree to an extent - but I also think that would be an individual thing to decide; if death is the better choice. I, personally, don't think I could judge another person as right or wrong for picking the opposite of their own death, no matter what the other choice is. 

it is "a" choice- so maybe that's better than non at all, but if a person choses the "not death option", that's still not consensual then. Nothing you agree to while being blackmailed is consensual.

It's similar than Ned having to chose between his honor/life and Sansa's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing about this is Jon is a spy, and a bad one. He chose (kinda), to spy on the wildlings. If he had legitimately gone over he would be free from the implied threat. He also draws mad suspicion on himself by asking too many questions and lying.

Everyone knows he's still a crow, the "threat" was only brought up after he lied about the Fist, and we don't know how it all went down...Ygritte tells him to find a new place for Ghost and the chapter ends. We don't know how he responded. 

Jon just has too much agency for me to consider this rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

My thing about this is Jon is a spy, and a bad one. He chose (kinda), to spy on the wildlings. If he had legitimately gone over he would be free from the implied threat. He also draws mad suspicion on himself by asking too many questions and lying.

Everyone knows he's still a crow, the "threat" was only brought up after he lied about the Fist, and we don't know how it all went down...Ygritte tells him to find a new place for Ghost and the chapter ends. We don't know how he responded. 

Jon just has too much agency for me to consider this rape.

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.

39 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

it is "a" choice- so maybe that's better than non at all, but if a person choses the "not death option", that's still not consensual then. Nothing you agree to while being blackmailed is consensual.

It's similar than Ned having to chose between his honor/life and Sansa's life.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

it is "a" choice- so maybe that's better than non at all, but if a person choses the "not death option", that's still not consensual then. Nothing you agree to while being blackmailed is consensual.

It's similar than Ned having to chose between his honor/life and Sansa's life.

Yeah I agree it isn't consensual, I was just saying if your choice is between doing something horrible & your own death there is no true choice. 

I guess I equate it to having "none at all" 

I think Ned didn't know he was choosing his death for Sansas life, He thought he was sacrificing his honor for her life but given the opportunity to give his own life for Sansas he probably would have, as most parents would. It's a little different because, as bad as it is, Ned sacrificed his own life for his childs in the end. 

When you are given the choices of doing something horrible or being killed, both things are horrible & nothing good is coming out of it, no matter what you choose. At the very least, Sansas life came out of Neds choice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

My thing about this is Jon is a spy, and a bad one. He chose (kinda), to spy on the wildlings. If he had legitimately gone over he would be free from the implied threat. He also draws mad suspicion on himself by asking too many questions and lying.

Not necessarily. Even if he truly switched sides & went over to them he would still be required to prove himself. The wildlings may have suspected he wasn't being true to them, but they certainly didn't know or they would have killed him on the spot. That would be the case whether or not Jon had legitimately gone over to them. They wouldn't know for sure until he had proven himself & until he did that threat would be there. 

27 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

Everyone knows he's still a crow, the "threat" was only brought up after he lied about the Fist, and we don't know how it all went down...Ygritte tells him to find a new place for Ghost and the chapter ends. We don't know how he responded

If they all know he is still a crow why not kill him? Why play his game at all? Why give him any opportunity to prove himself? They didn't know, they suspected, as they would with any newly transformed crow. 

We don't know how Jon responds that specific time but we do know how he has responded the times before this & it wasn't with assent. 

28 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

Jon just has too much agency for me to consider this rape.

I don't think he has much agency. I don't know if I consider it rape but there is certainly a question mark there at the best & it's rape at it's worst. It definitely is not clear it isn't rape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree that if the other choice is death that there is any true choice. 

I wonder if you aren't conflating "true choice" with "good choice". In a lot of situations (I would venture to say, most situations) choosing death wouldn't be a good choice. That doesn't make it not a choice.

 

58 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 I do understand what you are saying & agree to an extent - but I also think that would be an individual thing to decide; if death is the better choice.

So you don't actually disagree with it being a choice then.

 

59 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I, personally, don't think I could judge another person as right or wrong for picking the opposite of their own death, no matter what the other choice is. 

Good thing I'm not doing that, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

I wonder if you aren't conflating "true choice" with "good choice". In a lot of situations (I would venture to say, most situations) choosing death wouldn't be a good choice. That doesn't make it not a choice.

Literally any slave doesn't commit suicide could be said to ”choose to be a slave.”

Death and torture being apart of an ultimatum it's not a true choice being offered. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Good thing I'm not doing that, I guess.

What exactly are you doing? Just how far are you willing to stretch this logic?

If a person threatens to torture/and murder someone into having sex with them, should that person get off scot free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

wonder if you aren't conflating "true choice" with "good choice". In a lot of situations (I would venture to say, most situations) choosing death wouldn't be a good choice. That doesn't make it not a choice

This falls more under the category of a dilemma, or a choice of two undesirable options or an ultimatum.  A choice of sorts but no true choice, as in, no real choice in any sense of the word. 

If you are being forced to pick between your own death & doing something horrible, or something that will cause you emotional or physical harm, you aren't really being given any options. It's more of an all or nothing. Do this or you die, take this or have nothing. 

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

So you don't actually disagree with it being a choice then

Again, it's a choice of sorts in that there are two options to pick from but no true choice because there is no real or true option. You do it or you die. If the person does said thing they would be said to have been forced to do it by any law or standard that exists, that I'm aware of. 

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

Good thing I'm not doing that, I guess

No, I didn't say you were doing that. You said sometimes death is the better option. I'm expanding on that to say, there may be cases in which death is the better option to you, but that might not be the case for someone else. 

For instance if you were given the option to either kill a baby or be killed yourself. You may feel that being killed yourself is the better of those two. I may feel as if killing the baby is the better of the two. In situations like these, IMO, neither you or I would be more right or wrong than the other because we weren't really given a choice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What exactly are you doing? Just how far are you willing to stretch this logic?

If a person threatens to torture/and murder someone into having sex with them, should that person get off scot free?

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

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.

You're trying to argue with me about things I didn't say.

 

32 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This falls more under the category of a dilemma, or a choice of two undesirable options or an ultimatum.  A choice of sorts but no true choice, as in, no real choice in any sense of the word. 

If you are being forced to pick between your own death & doing something horrible, or something that will cause you emotional or physical harm, you aren't really being given any options. It's more of an all or nothing. Do this or you die, take this or have nothing. 

Again, it's a choice of sorts in that there are two options to pick from but no true choice because there is no real or true option. You do it or you die. If the person does said thing they would be said to have been forced to do it by any law or standard that exists, that I'm aware of. 

Are you saying that a "true choice" must necessarily be between a bad option and a good option only? And that, if both (or all) options are bad, that there is no real choice? I hope not, because IMO that's a dumb argument.

 Just because a possible option is terrible doesn't negate it as an option. It's still a choice that can be made, even if the outcome is terrible.

Also, "no real choice in any sense of the word" is just incorrect. All senses of the word "choice" include choices which may be bad.

 

29 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, I didn't say you were doing that. You said sometimes death is the better option. I'm expanding on that to say, there may be cases in which death is the better option to you, but that might not be the case for someone else. 

For instance if you were given the option to either kill a baby or be killed yourself. You may feel that being killed yourself is the better of those two. I may feel as if killing the baby is the better of the two. In situations like these, IMO, neither you or I would be more right or wrong than the other because we weren't really given a choice. 

Why are you trying to argue me out of something I never said? Yes, I did say that sometimes death might be the better option. That's all; I stopped there. Not once did I make any kind of value judgement over what someone's choice should or should not be, not once did I say or imply anything at all about the rightness or wrongness of either choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Are you saying that a "true choice" must necessarily be between a bad option and a good option only? And that, if both (or all) options are bad, that there is no real choice? I hope not, because IMO that's a dumb argument.

No, not at all. You can have two bad choices & they are still choices. 

I'm saying there is too much force involved here for this to be considered a choice. 

This hypothetical person is being forced to take action where normally they would not have. They are being forced to pick between two options, neither of which are anything they want to do, nor is it necessary, except to keep from being murdered.

If, for instance, you have a choice between selling your car to pay your rent or finding somewhere else to live, neither is a good option but you still get a choice. 

When you are threatened with death you are essentially being forced to do whatever the horrible deed is to save your own life. No true choice. 

As Varysblackfyre321 said this is the same as saying slaves choose to be slaves because, after all, they could have chosen death instead. 

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

Why are you trying to argue me out of something I never said?

Um... I'm not?

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

Yes, I did say that sometimes death might be the better option. That's all; I stopped there. Not once did I make any kind of value judgement over what someone's choice should or should not be, not once did I say or imply anything at all about the rightness or wrongness of either choice.

Yes I know that & specifically said I wasn't saying you said that, only that I was expanding on your opinion that sometimes death would be the better option with my own opinion that that would be an individual decision & the morality of it would be based on that persons opinion. In almost any other circumstance it would be 100% wrong, morally, to kill a baby but because there is no true choice involved here, rather the person is being forced, by threat of their own life, the rightness of the decision could only be decided by the person themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, not at all. You can have two bad choices & they are still choices. 

Whew. I must say, I'm relieved to hear it. :D

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm saying there is too much force involved here for this to be considered a choice. 

This hypothetical person is being forced to take action where normally they would not have. They are being forced to pick between two options, neither of which are anything they want to do, nor is it necessary, except to keep from being murdered.

If, for instance, you have a choice between selling your car to pay your rent or finding somewhere else to live, neither is a good option but you still get a choice. 

When you are threatened with death you are essentially being forced to do whatever the horrible deed is to save your own life. No true choice.

Well, the force being threatened or used definitely muddies up the question. But I still maintain that there is always a choice, even in the presence of violence or threat or death.

Each person has to decide if the horrible deed is worth living with or worth dying over. 

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

As Varysblackfyre321 said this is the same as saying slaves choose to be slaves because, after all, they could have chosen death instead. 

Don't they? I mean, if they choose not to rebel and risk death (along with the miniscule possibility of freedom), then aren't they are choosing to accept a life enslaved? It's still a choice.

At any rate, since I'm sounding like a broken record here, I'm going to bow out.

:cheers:

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...