Dany and Irri was pretty disturbing

[Sigella]

Just now, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Those are not her traits, though, those are the traits of Dany's entire khalasar

True, though its true for Danys entire entourage not exclusively dothraki followers. And it true for all the Stark kids, entire house Mormont and all true nights. Are they all cupboard outcuts too? 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Just now, Sigella said:

True, though its true for Danys entire entourage not exclusively dothraki followers. And it true for all the Stark kids, entire house Mormont and all true nights. Are they all cupboard outcuts too? 

No because they have actual distinguishing traits. Take the Stark kids, they are all incredibly fleshed out, except for Bran of course who is a carboard cut out. Tell, what differentiates Irri from J... I actually forgot her name, that's how memorable she is.

[Lollygag]

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

What, really?  If you mean between employer / direct line manager and employee / direct subordinate I can see why it would be frowned on or kept hidden: the fear of pressure because of unequal positions and the assumption of favouritism but I don't see how a contract could enforce restrictions on personal relations outside the workplace.  If between employees I'm even more surprised and I can't see how these contracts would be legally enforceable at all. [UK here].

Yeah. They can be legally enforced because you agreed to those terms when you were hired and none of those terms violate fundamental rights.

A lot of companies have official policies forbidding office romances and if found out, it's grounds for termination. The reasoning behind it is keeping a clean, drama-free workplace with minimal turnover. Some people can be professional about it, but romances statistically go bad. There's also potential to compromise work performance in that a very personal relationship will override decisions otherwise made in the company's interest.

There's a lot of flexibility obviously among companies. If the employees are respected, maintain professionalism and keep things very subtle, sometimes people will look the other way. Other times, there may be no penalty unless things really blow up, but one's position in the company may be harmed to the point of missed promotions and whatnot. Personally, I'd rather see my employees focus on work rather than using the workplace as a dating site. I don't want involved in any complicated situations that I don't need to be.

As with a lot of rules and regulations in the US at least, the rules are there so there's a trigger in case things go bad. But if you really want to keep your job and advance in it, you don't risk it unless that person is very special.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Personally, I'd rather see my employees focus on work rather than using the workplace as a dating site. I don't want involved in any complicated situations that I don't need to be.

Problem is, out of all the places you spend time at, home is the first, and the office is the second. The first is not very good for romance, unless you're in Alabama of course, and out of your remaining hours, your job takes up most of it. So naturally you will know the people there better, have more chances to interact with them and romance will often come from there. So limiting that, is I think just a sure fire way to make sure your employees are sexually repressed as hell, from all the people they'd like to boink, or at least approach, but can't because they'd get canned.

[Sigella]

10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

No because they have actual distinguishing traits. Take the Stark kids, they are all incredibly fleshed out, except for Bran of course who is a carboard cut out. Tell, what differentiates Irri from J... I actually forgot her name, that's how memorable she is.

Irri is braver, more confident and the alpha of the two. She’s the one who’s first to talk or act while Jhiqi follows her lead. No wonder she thinks she’s a cow.

edit: I get your point though - they aren’t super defined and a bit too similar for comfort.

[Lollygag]

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Problem is, out of all the places you spend time at, home is the first, and the office is the second. The first is not very good for romance, unless you're in Alabama of course, and out of your remaining hours, your job takes up most of it. So naturally you will know the people there better, have more chances to interact with them and romance will often come from there. So limiting that, is I think just a sure fire way to make sure your employees are sexually repressed as hell, from all the people they'd like to boink, or at least approach, but can't because they'd get canned.

I totally agree from the mental health standpoint. But people don't get raises or promoted on the mental health of their employees. In the US, it's just about keeping them this side of a breakdown.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

21 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

In the US, it's just about keeping them this side of a breakdown.

God, I love living in Europe, where the government and the employers actually give a shit

[Lollygag]

5 hours ago, Jaak said:

It is not clear how unfree she was, at least after Drogo died and Daenerys "freed" Irri.

And Irri does happen to have sexual desires for her own pleasure - and dares express them in front of Daenerys:

Daenerys does object, but her objection is ambiguous as to what she is objecting to:

What´s unclear here is whether Daenerys is objecting to Irri and Jhiqui trying to guard Rakharo without as much as his own agreement, or to anyone bedding Rakharo, period. Daenerys no longer has slaves, but she does have bloodriders, who she does not regard as free to leave her after they initially joined her as bloodriders. At one point, Daenerys considered bedding a bloodrider but decided against.

If Rakharo wanted to bed Irri, would either Rakharo or Irri be in trouble with Daenerys for that?

Irri wishes that Rakharo bedded her, but he does not seem to have done so. Irri is under no obligation to Rakharo to not bed someone else. Bedding Daenerys is not a pleasure for Irri, like bedding Rakharo might be - it is more a domestic chore - but one she has not yet had strong objections to doing.

And Irri clearly is not free to choose to sleep with Rakharo if Rakharo specifically wants to not sleep with Irri.

Confessing that I don't enjoy Dany's chapters as much and haven't read them in as much depth as other characters, so I can't comment much here.

I agree that Irri's definitely in a gray area, but I can't say she's in any position which is completely free. If someone Dany needed to ally with demanded a night with Irri as part of the bargain, I don't know where Dany would fall on that other than she wouldn't be happy about it. Virtually no woman in this story is completely free and I think this point is part of Dany's and other female characters' future arcs.

I'll also note that Irri being a woman doesn't easily just quit and go off to find something better on her own. We saw the reasons why more clearly through Sansa's and Arya's arcs. Again, women have it tougher here. There's a reason why prostitution is so-called the world's oldest profession.

[Megorova]

On 1/28/2021 at 9:51 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Second, and far more disturbing, Irri's weird, not really sure it's there, consent. From the whole feel of the chapter, and how Irri reacts, well she basically acts like a slave doing her duty to the master. There is some consent, but then there's also Dany being her boss/leader/master/whatever so it's weird. And while we can attribute it all to Irri not having shaken off all her habits/reflexes/whatever from when she was a slave, Dany being okay with it, and summoning her later on in Meereen for the same purpose is pretty weird, not gonna lie. Personally I'd put it right up there with Cersei and Taena in the "where the fuck even is this on the consent scale?" category.

So I dunno I was pretty grossed out. How about you? One thing is for sure though, there isn't a single sex scene by GRRM that isn't in some way disturbing or awkward.

Have you seen a movie "Coming to America"? The Prince, who is the main character, has people that wipe his ass, and people who clean his dick (female bathers), etc. And this woman was supposed to become his wife, begin watching what she said to him starting from 4:35:

This woman was supposed to become his wife, and the future Queen. And their country is not even a slave-country. Since she was born, she was trained to serve him, she likes to eat whatever food he likes to eat, she likes to listen to whatever music he likes to listen, she would like to do whatever he would like to do, etc. And she is a daughter of a country's General, not a mere hand-maid like Irri.

Royalty, and other rulers such as Lords, Ladys, Khals, Khaleesees, Archons, Triarchs, Princes and Princesses have servants that tend to ALL their needs. Clothe them, bath them, and if necessary even sate their sexual needs, etc. Both Robert Arryn and King Aegon III even had in their household replacement boys for beating, a whipping boys. In a sense that when Robert/Aegon misbehaved, instead of him that other boy was physically punished. Aegon's whipping boy was Gaemon Palehair. Tommen Baratheon also has a whipping boy, whose name is Pate. Smallfolk boys getting a beating that they haven't deserved. But this didn't disturbed you. You got disturbed by a scene in which an adult woman, by her own initiative, had a consensual sex with another adult woman. Yes, it was mechanical on Irri's part, because for her it was just doing her job. She did this not to get out of that act a sexual satisfaction for herself, just to satisfy Dany's needs. For Irri it was no different from helping Dany to bath, or to clothe her, or to feed her. Also mind that Medieval people had less moral complexes. For them it was completely normal to be naked in a presence of other people (in case with nobles, royalty, masters), or to be present in the same room as a naked person (in case with servants, maids, etc.). So what Irri did is absolutely normal, if you will look at that situation in a context of who Dany is, who Irri is, and who are they to each other, and in what time and society do they live.

I was more disturbed by event when Aegon IV saw on the KL's street a woman that he liked, and he took her as his mistress, even though she was married. He gave money to the woman's husband, and the husband took it. Four years later, when that woman gave birth to Aegon's four bastard-daughters, and he got bored of her, he sent her back to her husband. And then that husband beat his wife to death. And no one did nothing to him. THAT was disturbing. More disturbing than a consensual sex between two adults.

[TedBear]

I never thought of it as something disturbing that way, I always saw Dany and her handmaids as more than employees / leader, they are friends and companions, they are very intimate with Dany, they talk about personal matters close to her without fear of being scolded, they sleep together with her,  and they were also with Dany throughout the beginning of their marriage to Drogo, when Dany was also raped, we see from Dany's POV that Irri seemed to do it out of duty, while Dany herself also says that Irri was willing, someone who has sex for herself feeling obliged to this is not willing, nor do I think GRRM wanted to pass on the idea of sexual abuse to the public, just two girls spending time together, if you read and imagine GRRM writing these sex scenes then it makes everything very scary.

[CamiloRP]

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

God, I love living in Europe, where the government and the employers actually give a shit

Nah, they don't. They just hide it better.

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I agree that Irri's definitely in a gray area, but I can't say she's in any position which is completely free. If someone Dany needed to ally with demanded a night with Irri as part of the bargain, I don't know where Dany would fall on that other than she wouldn't be happy about it.

Considering how Daenerys resents the way Daenerys herself was traded as an asset into alliance, I assume Daenerys would object to trading Irri as an asset.

7 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Virtually no woman in this story is completely free and I think this point is part of Dany's and other female characters' future arcs.

I'll also note that Irri being a woman doesn't easily just quit and go off to find something better on her own. We saw the reasons why more clearly through Sansa's and Arya's arcs. Again, women have it tougher here. There's a reason why prostitution is so-called the world's oldest profession.

The obvious alternative for Irri would be a husband.

But she would not be freer as a wife than she is as a handmaiden. Even if she were married to Rakharo, the point of marriage is that she would precisely have the duty to bed Rakharo even when she is not in the mood but Rakharo is.

By Daenerys´ assertion that Irri does not have the duty to bed Daenerys, Irri´s duties as handmaiden are lighter than duties of any wife.

Daenerys may not pleasure Irri as much as Irri expects Rakharo to do, because Irri is clearly sexually attracted to Rakharo, not Daenerys. And Daenerys certainly cannot impregnate Irri.

But no husband can give Irri and her children stability, because any husband would be in mercy of political/military vagaries of Daenerys´ doing.

Irri may be open to marry if a suitable and willing suitor - or suitee! - comes along. But she has not been free for two years and is still a teen. She is not in a hurry.

[the trees have eyes]

19 hours ago, Sigella said:

@the trees have eyes

I gave motivation in first post and it still stands; aching hoping for kids but nothing of pleasure.

Also they live in an arranged marriage neither of them chose, which they were eventually happy with, but still.. Cat might have wanted Brandon and Ned Ashara for any number of years before finding their love. Certainly not black or white to me.

I don't know that we can say the "sweet ache" suggests nothing of pleasure, it does to me.  Granted it's not a chandelier swinging event leaving Catelyn in mindblown rapture but maybe a middle-aged couple have a more sedate approach to things in the bedroom.  If not mindblowing it doesn't mean it was unsatisfactory for Catelyn.  And if she is feeling broody or maternal and wants another child to reaffirm her bond with Ned in the face of upheaval in their household (as duly follows) or for it's own sake, hoping for it after sex is pretty natural (or the author introducing those thoughts immediately after the event to show us this is pretty standard writing).

Yes, arranged marriage is problematic and they were strangers when married so I take your point about how required rather than voluntary sexual relations were on their wedding night and may have been for a portion of their marriage but with the benefit of their povs we know they love each other dearly by the time of what I'll term the "aching loins bonk" so I was unclear why you would see this as morally grey.

I forget if you included it but what for me was the most troubling sexual encounter was Qarl the Maid and Asha Greyjoy as she clearly said no but he didn't accept that.

19 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Yeah. They can be legally enforced because you agreed to those terms when you were hired and none of those terms violate fundamental rights.

A lot of companies have official policies forbidding office romances and if found out, it's grounds for termination. The reasoning behind it is keeping a clean, drama-free workplace with minimal turnover. Some people can be professional about it, but romances statistically go bad. There's also potential to compromise work performance in that a very personal relationship will override decisions otherwise made in the company's interest.

I'm not American so I may be totally wrong but I still can't buy this.  Any contractual clause that limits your freedom of association or relationship outside the workplace is no business of the company's and is legally unenforceable (UK term alone and thus irrelevant maybe).  Grounds for dismissal are non- or poor performance of contractual duties (i.e. the relevant work duties you were hired to perform) or engaging in illegal / amoral activities that bring the company into disrepute / attract negative publicity (such as storming the US Capitol and live-streaming yourself doing so...).

Dating a co-worker may be undesirable because of potential drama affecting work performance but the company would have to prove that happened (in which case you're being fired for poor work performance) or else it's conjectural, arbitrary and discriminatory.  Limiting a person's legal activities / freedom of association outside the workplace by inserting a clause against dating a co-worker is as arbitrary as a clause saying wearing sneakers or drinking herbal tea is grounds for dismissal.  At work don't do those things, outside work do as you please.

I'll step down off my soapbox now but I'm pretty astounded by this.  I'll repeat I don't know US contract or employment law so I may be 100% wrong but I'm aghast that a country so in love with the notion of liberty would allow these practices (in which case the grass really is greener over here - in one small sense at any rate).

[Sigella]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I forget if you included it but what for me was the most troubling sexual encounter was Qarl the Maid and Asha Greyjoy as she clearly said no but he didn't accept that.

 I didn't. Its grey for the rapey play, but still probably one of the least problematic sex scenes. They both willing as hell and both gets to finish. If they didn't act so pervy it'd be romance novel-material.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

 

I'm not American so I may be totally wrong but I still can't buy this.  Any contractual clause that limits your freedom of association or relationship outside the workplace is no business of the company's and is legally unenforceable (UK term alone and thus irrelevant maybe).  Grounds for dismissal are non- or poor performance of contractual duties (i.e. the relevant work duties you were hired to perform) or engaging in illegal / amoral activities that bring the company into disrepute / attract negative publicity (such as storming the US Capitol and live-streaming yourself doing so...).

Dating a co-worker may be undesirable because of potential drama affecting work performance but the company would have to prove that happened (in which case you're being fired for poor work performance) or else it's conjectural, arbitrary and discriminatory.  Limiting a person's legal activities / freedom of association outside the workplace by inserting a clause against dating a co-worker is as arbitrary as a clause saying wearing sneakers or drinking herbal tea is grounds for dismissal.  At work don't do those things, outside work do as you please.

I'll step down off my soapbox now but I'm pretty astounded by this.  I'll repeat I don't know US contract or employment law so I may be 100% wrong but I'm aghast that a country so in love with the notion of liberty would allow these practices (in which case the grass really is greener over here - in one small sense at any rate).

On the issue of workplace romance, I suspect US employment practices are very different to those in the UK or the Continent.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I forget if you included it but what for me was the most troubling sexual encounter was Qarl the Maid and Asha Greyjoy as she clearly said no but he didn't accept that.

You seem to miss the part where that was clearly consensual, they were just into that kind of rough sex/BDSM/whatever the fuck it actually was

[Alyn Oakenfist]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

On the issue of workplace romance, I suspect US employment practices are very different to those in the UK or the Continent.

Yeah, it's always amazing how bad things are in less developed countries like the US

[Lollygag]

17 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm not American so I may be totally wrong but I still can't buy this.  Any contractual clause that limits your freedom of association or relationship outside the workplace is no business of the company's and is legally unenforceable (UK term alone and thus irrelevant maybe).  Grounds for dismissal are non- or poor performance of contractual duties (i.e. the relevant work duties you were hired to perform) or engaging in illegal / amoral activities that bring the company into disrepute / attract negative publicity (such as storming the US Capitol and live-streaming yourself doing so...).

Dating a co-worker may be undesirable because of potential drama affecting work performance but the company would have to prove that happened (in which case you're being fired for poor work performance) or else it's conjectural, arbitrary and discriminatory.  Limiting a person's legal activities / freedom of association outside the workplace by inserting a clause against dating a co-worker is as arbitrary as a clause saying wearing sneakers or drinking herbal tea is grounds for dismissal.  At work don't do those things, outside work do as you please.

I'll step down off my soapbox now but I'm pretty astounded by this.  I'll repeat I don't know US contract or employment law so I may be 100% wrong but I'm aghast that a country so in love with the notion of liberty would allow these practices (in which case the grass really is greener over here - in one small sense at any rate).

Below are a few links. A lot more to find if you want to dig in.

Again, enforcement is based on you signing an agreement to those terms when you're hired. If you don't sign, you find a job elsewhere. It's the same as all of the user agreements we see online everywhere. We can disagree, but we won't be allowed to use the service.  Also as I said before, a lot of these sorts of rules in the US are about having a kill switch in case things blow up, so no one is following anyone outside of work (ok, they're tracking our computer usage while working from home or the office, but whatever...). But if you two look a bit too friendly in the office and there's a policy, then it may well become an issue depending. And as a woman, we get more of the crap if it does.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/225755

https://www.allbusiness.com/setting-guidelines-and-policies-for-office-romances-16738151-1.html

Our sense of romance and sex is more heavily influenced by our religious immigrant ancestors than Europe is.

And the Supreme Court ruled recently that Hobby Lobby could deny their employees coverage for birth control (super personal!) because they object to that on religious grounds. Don't like it, find another job.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hobby-lobby-ruling-employers-dont-have-cover-birth-control-n144321

-----------------------------------------------

This seems off topic and it is at this point, but it's interesting how different norms and cultures inform how characters are perceived.

[SeanF]

15 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You seem to miss the part where that was clearly consensual, they were just into that kind of rough sex/BDSM/whatever the fuck it actually was

There are  limited circumstances in which having sexual relations with a person with whom you're in a position of authority would be grounds for some kind of legal sanction in the UK.  Teacher/pupil aged 16 -18 would be the obvious example.  Generally speaking, there would be no legal sanction for a rich man or woman who had sexual relations with a servant aged over 16.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

15 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You seem to miss the part where that was clearly consensual, they were just into that kind of rough sex/BDSM/whatever the fuck it actually was

There are  limited circumstances in which having sexual relations with a person with whom you're in a position of authority would be grounds for some kind of legal sanction in the UK.  Teacher/pupil aged 16 -18 would be the obvious example.  Generally speaking, there would be no legal sanction for a rich man or woman who had sexual relations with a servant aged over 16.

Yes there are, but what does it have to do with Asha and Qarl