Rape in fiction

[mormont]

The point is that Robert WASN'T raped (as we normally speak), even thought Robert was (or may reasonably be hypothesised to have been) coerced. So either we change how we speak and admit that Robert WAS raped, OR we change how we speak and admit that being coerced ISN'T enough to make it rape.

Or, we take the entirely reasonable position that what you're talking about isn't coercion by any sensible definition of that word. Stretch and pull at it if you will, but you haven't made it fit and frankly I don't think you can.

(It might help if you used a more hypothetical example - Robert and Cersei is very specific and it's easy to get sidetracked into details from the series. If I understand your point correctly, you would need proof that Tywin was actually likely to kill Robert for refusing to have sex with Cersei, and that's never going to fly.)

But even if we switch to a hypothetical situation where King A is pressured into having sex with Queen B by a third party, as I said a couple of pages back, that's not rape. You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that someone's saying differently.

Finally, I'm afraid I am going to have to ask you yet again where you're going with this: and what point you want to make in relation to the thread topic.

When you talk about rape in a thread on this board, you are speaking in public. You are speaking to an audience, some of whom have been raped, some of whom have had friends, partners, or relatives who suffered rape. We do ask, and always have asked, that people be sensitive and bear this in mind when discussing rape as a result.

When I see someone apparently just musing aloud about what does or doesn't count as rape, purely for the intellectual exercise of the thing, I tend to think that this is insensitive to those other boarders. If you want to do it in conversation with your friends, on your personal blog, or whatever, that's different. But here, you are in effect speaking to people who've had traumatic experiences, and for many of them these were made much worse because the perpetrator or others denied that what happened was rape at all. They all had arguments about what rape is and is not, too.

I am not saying you condone any of that, to be clear: the only thing I'm accusing you of is being so wrapped up in your intellectual exercise that you may not have considered this issue properly. And I am not saying that nobody is ever allowed to discuss the definition of rape, either. I am saying that unless it's got some sort of bearing on the topic of this thread, you should not do it in this thread: and even if it does, you should try to approach the subject more carefully than you have been doing. Your last sentence above is a case in point. Seriously, you're suggesting that coercion doesn't necessarily equal rape? Can you imagine how that looks to someone who's been raped?

Now if you have objections to any of that, I'll ask you to please take them to PM.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Overused as a trope to threaten female protagonists with?

All too often either over-used or thrown in for no apparent reason (other than shock value or as a sick sort of "wank material"). I do like how Martin approached it. The scene where Gregor's minions are describing the rape of the inn keeper's daughter works very well to fully illustrate just how evil and twisted the man (and his followers) are. In fact, even though it's a bit rough to allow that to play out in the cinema of my mind (it takes a bit of internal editing), it has become one of my favorite scenes for it's ability to form a set feeling towards a character. Any chance I had of ever sympathizing with him (or attempting to understand him) was gone after that scene.

Is it ever done well? Is it ever necessary?

I once read a book by author Joel Rosenberg that handled it very well. I think it was in 'The Sleeping Dragon' (Part of his 'Guardians of the Flame' series of books). In it, the girl that was the victim went suddenly from being a strong minded, strong willed, free spirit to a near catatonic, shattered shell of a human being. Not a "sexy" (as in not appealing or meant to be wank material) or overly graphic depiction at all. I think it showed just how completely brutal and devastating the act can actually be quite well though.

Thoughts?

There is a time and a place for everything. Much as I may hate to say this, I think that the occasional rape can make a fantasy series feel substantially more realistic (when it is approached with care and not over-used).

ETA: For an Example of needed for realism, but way overdone on the graphic nature, there is a scene in Stephen King's book "The Stand" which gave me nightmares for quite a while after I read it.

[Alexia]

The friend was actually the singer Dareon. The deserter Arya axed in Braavos. ;)

[Liadin]

It's being sent to the Wall, or losing your balls.

. . . .

Of course, there is the power differential - meaning, if you are of a high social class, or under the protection of such (eg, Marillion), then you can get away with behavior that would have common men sent to the Wall or gelded.

Of course. Can't believe I forgot that.

I'm quoting your last sentence in my defense--because the kinds of people who end up at the Wall aren't the kinds of people were ever see pre-Wall (and quite honestly, given the amount of raping that goes on in the Seven Kingdoms as compared to the number of people on the Wall, I think it's a tiny percentage of the criminals who ever end up there--even tinier once you subtract the people who are there by choice, the orphans, the political prisoners and the ones whose crimes were poaching or some such). The soldiers, the lords' retinues, etc., seem to be in no danger of any penalty, let alone members of the noble classes themselves.

And I wonder if rape is generally taken very seriously even when the rapist is a commoner, or if they're only sent to the Wall when the girl is of a higher social status and/or the guy is caught in the act by a male relative of the girl.

No hints as to whether the Westerosi view rape as a crime because of what you've done to the woman, or because of what you've done to her father/husband.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Tolkien uses the actual word "rape" at least twice:

The word "rape" comes from Latin "rapere" (to seize/snatch/carry-off-by-force). In modern usage, the term has come to mean taking someone sexually by force, but in older usage, the word rape was more in line with the original Latin meaning of theft. Thus Tolkien describes the theft of the Silmarils as rape.

As for (sexual) rape in Tolkien:

- Turin kills an outlaw who is trying to rape a woman.

- Morgoth (in unpublished drafts) rapes the Maia of the Sun, Arien.

- Morgoth has "dark designs" on Luthien as she is dancing in front of him. Putting two and two together...

- Celebrian is tormented by the Orcs in the Misty Mountains. Likely including rape.

- Possibly the least likely candidate for a rapist you could imagine, but Tom Bombadil (in the Adventures of Tom Bombadil) pretty much grabs Goldberry and says he's going to take her home whether she wants it or not.

- Eol's marriage to Aredhel is not exactly consensual. She's described as "not wholy unwilling", but to modern eyes it does skate a bit close to the edge.

[Morrigan]

Remember Cersei's comment about Robert only having got her wet on their wedding night. Forcible intercourse thereafter.

Her not being "wet" only means she was not enthusiastic, not necessarily that she was raped.

However, from our perspective, Robert raped Cersei every time he had penetrative sex with her after their wedding night.

Which means that for the good of the kingdom, to produce heirs, Cersei would have to be raped. Funny how rape can now be "necessary"...

Rape is a crime against the person. If you've been raped, someone raped you.

So who raped

Queen Terez

in Last Argument of King?

Was it Jezal, or was it Glokta? Seems unfair to pin Jezal as a rapist in this case, but Glokta didn't do the act himself.

If you want to say she wasn't really raped, I have to remind you she was definitely coerced and threatened.

I also read a post, on another forum, by a woman who related how she was raped... but while she said she was raped, she was unsure of whether or the perpetrator was an actual rapist. Basically, she let a guy sleep at her place for the night. During the night came in her room uninvited, and she froze with fear. He had sex with her and she was too scared to resist at all, so she just let him go at it and did nothing, said nothing. The guy didn't ask for her consent, either. It's a bit complicated, but she said she "felt raped" but couldn't bring herself to label the man as a rapist.

Here's the thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129640

So, I guess you could have a rape without an actual rapist...

Climb down off the cross there and knock off the mind-reading bullshit. I asked a simple question, that's all. I notice you didn't answer it. (I also notice your attempts to be funny are rather weak.)

You are being unfair. Your question was loaded, no doubt about it. Kind of like the "when will you stop beating your wife?" question, only not quite as blatant.

Come to think of it, in Westeros, I can't recall ever being told what the legal penalty for rape would be, if there is such a penalty.

Being sent to the Wall is one. See: Daeron.

Moving onto an other series... what does everyone think of Mat's rape in the hands of Tylin? RJ attempted to present it lightheartedly... A foolish decision since that has made many question if he was raped at all.

I think it was done horribly, and showed Jordan as an asshole. Mat was raped, and the whole attempt to show it as funny is actually kind of sickening.

Oh, and Cersei is not only raped by Robert. We see her resisting at the sept, but Jaime takes her by force. We see her resisting at the tower of Winterfell. And from the memories of Jaime we see that he raped her often. It does seem that she also had fully consensual sex with him often, and did not blame him for raping her - but who raped her more, Robert or Jaime?

WTF? Jaime never raped Cersei. Sorry to be all ad hominem and all but, are you a virgin? Because a woman playfully "resisting" by saying "no no babe, now's not a good time..." and following it up with "oh yeah! take me hard!" is not even remotely close to rape and I can't fathom why anyone with a bit of sexual experience would think that... in fact, it's kind of offensive to the real rape victims. :unsure:

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just to make a quick comment about the Jezal/Glotka issue: under most modern law Jezal would be aquitted on the grounds that he genuinely and reasonably believed that the sex was consensual. Glotka on the other hand would be guilty of conspiracy to rape, because he was the one doing the coercing. So while Jezal committed the act, it would be Glotka actually being found guilty.

(Interestingly, under modern law, Ygritte raped Jon in their initial encounter, due to the coercion that Jon was facing - if he hadn't consented, he would have been killed).

[MinDonner]

I also read a post, on another forum, by a woman who related how she was raped... but while she said she was raped, she was unsure of whether or the perpetrator was an actual rapist. Basically, she let a guy sleep at her place for the night. During the night came in her room uninvited, and she froze with fear. He had sex with her and she was too scared to resist at all, so she just let him go at it and did nothing, said nothing. The guy didn't ask for her consent, either. It's a bit complicated, but she said she "felt raped" but couldn't bring herself to label the man as a rapist.

Here's the thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=129640

So, I guess you could have a rape without an actual rapist...

No, you couldn't, or certainly not in this case (Jezal and Terez I will allow, but bear in mind that that is a combination of very specific and fictional circumstances). It's a basic misconception that consenting is the default, and has to be actively refused for it to be rape, whereas in fact it should be the other way round. That guy assumed consent without even checking, which makes him a rapist. Sorry.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's a basic misconception that consenting is the default, and has to be actively refused for it to be rape, whereas in fact it should be the other way round. That guy assumed consent without even checking, which makes him a rapist. Sorry.

The issue is one of reasonable belief. If the accused could reasonably be expected to believe that the other person was consenting, it isn't rape. Of course, in this case I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the guy had reasonable grounds for such a belief.

[Lummel]

I think you're are being generous in saying he assumed consent. It looks like rape, you've got the actus reus even if the mens rea is unknown.

[Alexia]

No, you couldn't, or certainly not in this case (Jezal and Terez I will allow, but bear in mind that that is a combination of very specific and fictional circumstances). It's a basic misconception that consenting is the default, and has to be actively refused for it to be rape, whereas in fact it should be the other way round. That guy assumed consent without even checking, which makes him a rapist. Sorry.

I 100% agree - on the face of that post, she was raped and he's a rapist. What's more, I'll add in that the police advise women not to resist during rape because of the danger of being hurt.

And thank God that rapists haven't been able to use "I didn't know I was raping her as a defense" for quite some time now.

[mormont]

I said already, if you want to discuss my last post, use PM. The thread derailment is over.

So who raped

Queen Terez

in Last Argument of King?

Was it Jezal, or was it Glokta? Seems unfair to pin Jezal as a rapist in this case, but Glokta didn't do the act himself.

If you want to say she wasn't really raped, I have to remind you she was definitely coerced and threatened.

Asked already, answered already.

[Zoë Sumra]

Throwing a new example in here:

Has anyone else read Trade Wind by MM Kaye?

You'd think that one of the Things That Used To Happen But Could Not Happen Today would be a book being published where

the (anti)hero unequivocally rapes the heroine and the two of them still wind up walking off into the sunset together, or rather standing on the sunset beach together staring fatuously at each other.

But you'd also think that examination of rape victims' sexual history went out in the 1970s/1980s, and, not so much.

So, question - do you see the Trade Wind situation happening in a book published today?

[brook]

So, question - do you see the Trade Wind situation happening in a book published today?

Its not exactly the same thing but I was very uncomfortable with several of the 'consensual' sex scenes in Outlander. At least one of them was unquestionably rape imo despite the fact it was all presented as very romantic.

I guess that book is nearly 20 years old now as well but I still would have expected better from something published in the 90's.

[moirne]

Its not exactly the same thing but I was very uncomfortable with several of the 'consensual' sex scenes in Outlander. At least one of them was unquestionably rape imo despite the fact it was all presented as very romantic.

Which scenes are you talking about? I was completely disgusted by Jamie and Randall, which was definitely rape and utterly disturbing.

[brook]

I'll try and dig the book later for the details but as I remember it Claire was saying no and Jaime insisted. Afterwards Claire was left thinking that it was clear he would be gentle but she wouldn't be allowed to say no.

Nowhere near as vicious as Jamie/Randall but I do remember the scene creeping me out at the time.

[Morrigan]

No, you couldn't, or certainly not in this case (Jezal and Terez I will allow, but bear in mind that that is a combination of very specific and fictional circumstances). ... That guy assumed consent without even checking, which makes him a rapist. Sorry.

I would agree (and you don't have to apologize), but the victim herself hesitates in calling him a rapist. I would think she'd know best.

It's a basic misconception that consenting is the default, and has to be actively refused for it to be rape, whereas in fact it should be the other way round.

That depends entirely on the circumstances, though. For example, within a married/long-term couple, consent can be assumed unless one actively says no. Same with, say, guy meets girl in a bar, wink-wink nudge-nudge let's go back to my apartment and let's start making out kind of thing. Of course, the circumstances in Fiona's case are certainly not the kind where consent would be implicitly assumed, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few presumptuous idiots claimed otherwise. :|

Asked already, answered already.

Where? Sorry, I must have missed it.

[moirne]

Yes; I must ask which of the scenes in Outlander, also. Clearly, the Jamie/Randall scenes were outright rape, although I don't find male/male rape any more or less "disgusting" than male/female rape, any rape is (and should) obviously be disturbing.

I've read the whole series, and Outlander was a long time ago, for me.

I wasn't disgusted because it was two men, it was just really violent and awful. Actually, I think that was the first book I read that had a rape scene in it. I picked up the 2nd book of the series and there was another rape, this time a young girl. That one wasn't nearly as descriptive and abusive though.

brook, Jamie and Claire had so many sex scenes that I can't recall the one you mean :lol: I believe you though. I hated Jamie after he beat Claire. If we are supposed to be in love with his character, Gabaldon didn't succeed with me. I haven't read past the 2nd book.

[Angalin]

...so, that just about jumped the shark, and I was wondering if it was a moment of authorial wish fulfillment with a fictional character :)

Chataya, that's bonkers. :o Makes me very glad I dropped the series early on.

[moirne]

Oh, and in the very most recent book...

Claire and Lord John get jiggy. Yes. They have sex after they believe Jamie to be dead, and Claire has to marry Lord John to save her life from the authorities, because she is involved with the American Revolution, and the British authorities want to hang her, but she's safe by marrying John.

...so, that just about jumped the shark, and I was wondering if it was a moment of authorial wish fulfillment with a fictional character :)

Oh lord, that's awful! Now I definitely won't be reading the rest of them :lol:

So is Jamie actually alive and she is a polygamist?

How many more before the series is finished?