The Official Cersei Lannister Appreciation thread II

[mediocre cheese]

And that is all I am trying to say. Every human has had to make their way in the world that was given to them. Cersei had to know and expect that husband's "rights" were going to be part of the price of all those bits about being queen that she so reveled in

Should we condemn all of the victims of the inquisition than? I mean all those jews and muslims knew that they had to live in a catholic country, by secretly practicing their religion they were defying the laws of the country. Guess they deserved their time on the rack, because they refused to follow the world that was given to them.

I think general Napier's words are applicable here "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.". According to the customs of westeros Robert wasn't a rapist, but according to the customs of 19th century India Sati was normal. That doesn't mean Robert hasn't committed what we know as rape, just as Napier didn't give those practicing Sati any special consideration because it was their historical custom. One can complain about an unjust situation even when the law hasn't caught up.

[SeanF]

By 21st century standards, most of the major players we meet in ASOAIF would be facing lengthy prison terms at the hands of the International Criminal Court.

It's an interesting point though, to what extent should we judge the characters by our standards, or by the standards of their time and place?

[Woman of War]

The first in RL prison would be the good guy Ned Stark for beheading a man who panicked in the face of danger and ran.

[mediocre cheese]

By 21st century standards, most of the major players we meet in ASOAIF would be facing lengthy prison terms at the hands of the International Criminal Court.

It's an interesting point though, to what extent should we judge the characters by our standards, or by the standards of their time and place?

I think your sort of misunderstanding my point. Clearly most of the major characters commit what would be major war crimes. My point is not to say one has to judge a character in the way one judges a person. My point was a direct response to this idea that because its a medieval world a victim of marital rape should shut up and "make their way in the world that was given to them". Just because an injustice is not recognized or even codified by law doesn't mean it isn't an injustice, or that one is wrong for resenting it.

I think Robert raped Cersei, and the idea that he didn't is just lame cultural relativism. But I'm with Napier, others would see Napier as a cultural imperialist. That said, that doesn't mean one can't enjoy Robert as a character, or wish him success or whatever. We all like characters who are guilty of things that we wouldn't approve of in actual people. Plenty of books/films/television are set in the criminal sector. One can like a character without approving of his actions were they performed in the real world.

There is a difference between judging an act and judging a character. Robert's act was rape, that doesn't mean you have to judge his character the same way you would as juror in a rl courtroom.

The first in RL prison would be the good guy Ned Stark for beheading a man who panicked in the face of danger and ran.

A russian commander who shot a wartime deserter would not be put in prison.

[Raksha the Demon]

Actually, I find it hard to like Cersei. Her character is interesting to read about, I appreciate some of her lines and she certainly generates drama; but I don't really like her either as a person or as a character; not so much for the sexual rebellion, but for her general cruelty and tendency to commit physical assault/torture, and order people, including babies, murdered. Not to mention how she allowed her oldest child, who would one day have almost absolute power at his disposal, to become a spoiled and vicious, cruel kid; with apparently no attempt to curtail or discipline him.

I think GRRM has, in general, done a good job in creating and writing Cersei. I don't like her; but she adds a lot of spice and fire to ASoIaF. She reminds me of Livia in Robert Graves' I, Claudius, only younger, perhaps more beautiful, and far less controlled, and not as smart (neither of them are particularly good mothers, though in Cersei's defense, she never considered killing any of her children).

[Alexia]

I also don't understand the nitpicking over language when it comes to sexual violence against women within the story. Robert might not have considered his act rape, even his peers might not. But according to the language that *we* the readers use, it is absolutely defined as rape.

With respect to Average Cheese's great comparison to the institution of Sati, my understanding is that Sati was not considered to be a criminal act of murder at various points during India's history. That is not going to stop me from terming it murder (which it objectively is) and from cheering General Napier for ordering the gibbets erected. Likewise, just because marital rape is not termed a criminal act of rape at various points during our history, or within the context of Westeros, I am not going to stop calling it rape (which it objectively is) and cheering the women who retaliate in various ways against their abusers.

Why is it so important to emphasize that Robert wouldn't have used the word *rape*? How does that change what was done to her, his own shame at his treatment of her? There are various abuses against the weak throughout the story (the Hound says that the weak were made for the strong to play with) but the story doesn't validate it, far from it. This is a modern story by a modern author set in an imaginary world in which he explores the impact of the abuses upon their victims and how they might react to those abuses. Does it matter if Robert or Cersei would have used the word *rape*? Does it make his treatment of her somehow better?

[Zar Lannister]

The first in RL prison would be the good guy Ned Stark for beheading a man who panicked in the face of danger and ran.

I don't generally defend Ned, but that's something I don't hold him accountable for. The penalty for deserting The Watch was death, and Will was a deserter.

As for Cersei, she's definitely not a good person, but I can admire her resistance to accept defeat.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Why is it so important to emphasize that Robert wouldn't have used the word *rape*?

Because intent to commit a crime forms a large part of any criminal justice system, then or now. If what you are doing is not considered a crime (or even a very big deal) by the world you live in, then the world you live in must be taken into account when you are judged by future generations.

I am going to try to make somewhat of a comparison, albeit probably a lame one. Let's say for the sake of argument that 100 years from now, it is made illegal to declaw your cat. At this point in history, some people already believe it should be illegal. Some think it is probably not right. Some people totally don't care one way or another, and some believe it is every pet owner's decision. From my perspective, i did have two cats declawed 20 years ago, before all the info came out about what it does to them. I would never declaw a cat now.

So in about 150 years, 50 years after it is made illegal, some journalist decides to write a book including the names of everyone who ever declawed a cat. My name is in it, and I am villified (I plan to live a long time) and called names for 1. Breaking a law that was not a law at the time, 2. Putting my cats through a procedure that my vet assured me (and common knowledge at the time agreed) was perfectly reasonable and safe. Should I be held accountable fo something I was raised believing waa perfectly justifies and normal, just because humanity's views and rules have changed hugely over time?

Was Robert a jerk? Yes. Was he a rapist? Sometimes. Was every instance of him having sex with Cersei rape because she found him personally disgusting? No.

[Alexia]

Who said that Robert committed a crime when he raped Cersei?

Here's an example that I've been using lately. In Norway, marital rape is not a crime. I was rather surprised to learn this recently through a NY Times article. They have rape victims with very clear evidence of forced sexual penetration and the husbands are not charged with rape because they didn't commit a crime under Norwegian law.

Does the fact that the man didn't commit a crime make him not a rapist? I say that these men are rapists, regardless of whether or not they violated a legal statute.

Finally, declawing your cat *is* a lame comparison, IMO. Let's try this one on for size. You beat your dog. When your dog misbehaves, you grab a bat and beat it. When your dog snarls at another dog, you grab a bat and beat it. When your dog pees on the carpet, you grab a bat and beat it. There are no laws against animal cruelty at the time. But 150 years later, I read in a history book about you and your propensity for beating your dog. And I think that you are a shitty excuse for a human being, despite the fact that humanities rules and views have changed over time and you once thought it was normal.

Oh, and just to polish it off, your dog snapped one day and tore you to pieces. And I think that you brought your mauling down on yourself and raise a toast of champagne to your dog.

(You general, of course, not you Lady of the North)

[Alexia]

Also, as one final addendum, in the US justice system the "I didn't know I was committing rape" defense is not a defense any more.

When I was a teenager, my dad was still in law school and for some random reason, I picked up his criminal law textbook and started flipping through the pages about sexual assault. There's one story in there about the development of modern law on sexual assault that stands out very vividly for me; I never forgot it. It took place a couple hundred years ago in England but I don't remember exact dates or anything. A group of men, including the husband, went and very violently gang raped the husband's wife. The men all plead not guilty, saying that they didn't know it was a rape because the husband told them that his wife likes it rough and likes to put up a fight. At the time, that was a defense (I didn't know I was raping her; I thought she wanted it) and the husband admitted that he told them this.

Well, they were all convicted, with the exception of the husband (spousal rape wasn't a crime at that time, but he *was* charged despite that) who was convicted of being an accessory to rape.

Why do I bring this up? Because whenever I hear someone talk about the *intent to commit a crime* with relation to rape, it always reminds me of that story in my father's law textbook.

[mediocre cheese]

Because intent to commit a crime forms a large part of any criminal justice system, then or now. If what you are doing is not considered a crime (or even a very big deal) by the world you live in, then the world you live in must be taken into account when you are judged by future generations.

Whether something is a crime or not isn't the basis of judging something. It is currently a crime where I live (US) to consume certain intoxicating substances. That doesn't mean I think consuming said substances is morally wrong, or I would view someone who did so negatively. By the same token taking out insurance against the same financial securities your selling to the public, thus essentially betting the securities will go bust, while at the same time telling the public that they won't isn't illegal (you don't see lloyd blankfein or jamie dimon being indicted). But I think it is immoral and someone who did so should be viewed negatively.

If you think your declawing your cat will be viewed by later generations as monstrous, than you shouldn't do it. Whether something is the law or not doesn't change its basic premise. Whether or not something was a crime at the time it was done has very little to do with how later generations view it. If some dude owned a bar throughout the 20s, and another one participated in lynchings, I and most people (hopefully) would view the one who owned the bar as having done nothing wrong, while the one who participated in lynchings would be rightly condemned. This despite the fact that owning a bar was illegal in the 20s and lynching wasn't.

Whether or not something is against the law shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether you do it or not.

[1234567]

Robert himself feels guilty the next morning, and Ned was not exactly happy about Robert's treatment of Cersei either (he also wasn't happy that Robert was getting 15 year old prostitutes pregnant either). All of Robert's actions may not have been considered crimes, but they clearly were seen as dishonourable traits.

Laws and people's attitudes don't just change overnight, generally there is actually a debate within society and a large shift in views and opinions to actually have something changed in legal terms, but that does not mean that the behaviour was not largely frowned upon before that. For example Vivisection was popular for scientists in 19th century England and France and was legal, but there was a huge move to have it stopped because it was seen as abhorrent. Even some of the vivisectionists themselves hated it, but continued in the name of science. Today it is practically illegal (animal testing goes nowhere near what they did in the 19th Century), and it consider repulsive, but in the 19th century it was legal and was also considered morally repulsive.

[Valmorfëa]

I don't argue that Robert was a douche, or that he was right to be violent. But he was also the King. And being married to the King means having little princes... and you are refusing to sleep with him? Back then it was a woman's duty to give her husband heirs. Unimaginable in today's society, but nevertheless true. There was no Magna Carta. If a lord killed a peasant, nobody cared. Because the peasant was a lesser human being.

I actually don't think Cersei ever gave him a chance, and know how cruel she can be, I'm sure she subtly mocked him wherever she could... and the danger of poking a boar with a stick is that it'll end up charging at you. As LadyoftheNorth72 said

Cersei's plan seems to have been to flat out buck the system permanently, and that is as unrealistic a proposition as she could possibly have come up with. She was knowingly putting herself in a situation where her position would be precarious at best. You can only gore an ox so many times before he gores back.

Remember The Other Boelyn Girl? There's a classic example of a woman trying to use her sexuality to get ahead. It gave her a bit of power to begin with, but it ended with rape and the guillotine.

In the end, Cersei thought she was a good plotter, and so many times she only shot herself in the foot.

No one is saying that Cersei is good-hearted. She';s not. She's prideful, vindictive, and selfish. But so are many other characters, and they don't get the same amount of scorn and abuse as Cersei.

Very few other characters have done as many unnecessary cruel things as she has.

She "uses sex" to manipulate people because, as a woman in male-dominated society, there is very little for her to bargain with. And let us remember, she has slept with all of 4 people in the entire series. Her husband, her long-term lover, Lancel, and one of the Kettleblacks. And the Kettleblack encounter was not intended - it was a terrifying near-rape. (I say near-rape, because she tacitly consents, but she never intended to sleep with him and had she protested it would not have mattered)

4 men that we know of. And a woman. I'm sorry but using sex to bargain is a male-dominated society is a recipe for disaster, and lowers her down to the level of whore. If you're smart you make those men think with their heads and hearts, not with their dicks. Cersei was Queen, she had way more than sex to bargain with. She was just used to everything being laid down at her feet because of her beauty. And when that didn't work, she resorted to sex, when she should have 'done a Doran'.

I said that I don't think she hated him until she realized he was still pining for Lyanna.

Cersei wanted Rhaegar, and loved herself/Jaime, what right does she have to judge Robert based on Lyanna? She slept with Jaime (and was proud of it!) the morning of her wedding!

He loved her father's money, and perhaps fear of Tywin would have prevented him from setting Cersei aside, but she was hedging her bets.

And she loved his power. Pretty good match if you ask me.

(..)

Guess they deserved their time on the rack, because they refused to follow the world that was given to them.

(..)

One can complain about an unjust situation even when the law hasn't caught up.

By marrying Robert, Cersei accepted all the advantages and disadvantages of having the positing of Queen. She could have joined the Silent Sisters if she had no aspirations to power.

And yes, Ned was put off when he found out his friend was a drunken a-hole. But rape was common back then and the rule of the stronger meant that it was not considered unjust.

Sorry for the long post >.<

[Alexia]

If a lord killed a peasant, nobody cared. Because the peasant was a lesser human being.

So? Are we arguing that this was not unjust too? Are we defending the lords for their treatment of peasants now too, in addition to defending rape?

And a woman. I&amp;#39;m sorry but using sex to bargain is a male-dominated society is a recipe for disaster, and lowers her down to the level of whore.

No, actually it doesn't. Whore is a gendered, misogynistic term used by both men and women to shame other women and control their behavior. The use of the term "whore" says far more about the person using it than it does about the targeted woman.

But rape was common back then and the rule of the stronger meant that it was not considered unjust.

Just like it was apparently not unjust to murder peasants? Just like the Rape of Nanking was not unjust? Just like the riots and massacres around the partition of India were not unjust? Just like the Holocaust was not unjust? Just like African slavery was not unjust, and the treatment of the African slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean was not unjust? Just like lynchings were not unjust?

Bullshit that "the rule of the stronger" means that something is not considered unjust. Lynchings were extremely common in the early 1900s in the U.S., a mob of over 15,000 men gathered to torture Jesse Washington to death (including law enforcement) and not one of them were even charged. You can justify every sort of evil with crap about "the rule of the stronger" but it doesn't make it just, it only makes you somebody whitewashing atrocities and blaming victims.

People who recognized the injustices of these situations are the reason why they are no longer acceptable in our society any more.

And in closing, rape is common today. In the US, 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault. In England, about 7% of rape cases result in conviction.

[Queen Cersei I]

Yes. Was he a rapist? Sometimes.

I don't really even feeling like getting into this long and ridiculous debate again, so I'm not even going to bother.

But, one brief comment-- Robert cannot be a rapist "sometimes." A person either is a rapist or they are not. It's like saying a person who murdered someone was "a murder-- sometimes."

[LadyoftheNorth72]

If you think your declawing your cat will be viewed by later generations as monstrous, than you shouldn't do it.

This is kind of the point I was trying to make. At the time that I had my cats declawed, it was considered an utterly routine and normal practice, performed everyday by reputable vets. Now, just 20 years later, it is considered a bad idea by most, outright animal cruelty by many. It will not surprise me if it ends up becoming outlawed completely in the future, because levels of human knowledge and I guess what you would call humanity have evolved and developed. But at the time that I did it, I was just doing something that a huge number of other cat owners did, without any of us being considered monsters for doing it. It never crossed my mind that I was crossing a line because it was not considered crossing a line by either society or the law when I did it.

In Robert's case things are a bit different because he does cross the line sometimes and he knows it. But simply expecting reasonably regular sex with his wife is not crossing the line of his society or its laws. Pinning Cersei down and raping her is obviously over the line and I believe from what Cersei says of his faked remorse afterward, that he knew it ...but those incidents were not the sum total of their sex life together. She herself says that she found other ways to pleasure him which apparently chilled him out a bit. Which is why I said is he a rapist, yes; is it rape every time he has sex with Cersei, no. Otherwise every husband who ever had sex with a wife who was not in the mood and just put up with it because it was easier and faster than having an argument about saying no, would be a rapist.

[LadyoftheNorth72]

Remember The Other Boelyn Girl? There's a classic example of a woman trying to use her sexuality to get ahead. It gave her a bit of power to begin with, but it ended with rape and the guillotine.

Just fyi (because Anne Boleyn is a subject near and dear to my heart, whom I have been fascinated with and studied for decades now), "The Other Boleyn Girl" is utter fiction from start to finish. I was so disgusted by the complete ignoring of the historical record that I did not even realize they supposedly used a guillotine to execute her at the end - a contraption which would not even be invented for another 250 years. Anne was beheaded by an expert French swordsman brought in especially for her, and not because she was greedy for power and overplayed her hand. It was because she had promised Henry a son, failed twice or three times to deliver, and he had decided he was in "love" with another woman. Because of the Katherine of Aragon affair, he had discovered it was much easier to accuse of treason and be widowed in a matter of days, than to try to divoce which would take months or years, so he had her executed on patently false charges of adultery and witchcraft.

Anne's story is absolutely fascinating and she was a truly remarkable woman. If you want to watch a movie that sticks closest to the reality, I recommend "Anne of the Thousand Days" with Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold. Good books include Eric Ives, Antonia Fraser and David Starkey's books on Henry's wives (Ives' in particular, as he set out to uncover some of the more blatantly false legends about Anne). Philippa Gregory's books tend to be romantic novels very loosely based on historical characters.

[Alexia]

She was also accused of incest with her brother, by the by.

Alison Weir has some very interesting histories about Anne Boleyn. She just came out with one about Anne's sister Mary, but I read The Six Wives of Henry VIII and it was really fascinating stuff.

[headtrip_honey]

She was also accused of incest with her brother, by the by.

Alison Weir has some very interesting histories about Anne Boleyn. She just came out with one about Anne's sister Mary, but I read The Six Wives of Henry VIII and it was really fascinating stuff.

Love Alison Weir.

[Valmorfëa]

Woah, the personal attacks seem a little unnecessary here, but ok.

I can see how you may have misunderstood my point. My arguments stem from what we've been shown of Westerosi society, and how an average person at that place and time would have viewed things. You're telling me how those things are considered today, and I agree with the issues you raise, but that doesn't change the fact that it was then/there perceived differently and would not be judged as harshly. By Ned or Doran Martell or Illyrio or even Cersei probably.

The point I've been trying to make is that it isn't quite right to portray Cersei as some tragic feminist figure. Rape doesn't excuse her actions, especially something that by Westerosi standards may not have been considered outright rape. Cersei did much worse to people in her power.

However, I don't think you can make me believe that using sex as a tool to power is in any way a good thing.

Anyway, I like coming here for a healthy debate and apologies if I've offended. 'twas not my intention.

Anne's story is absolutely fascinating and she was a truly remarkable woman. If you want to watch a movie that sticks closest to the reality, I recommend "Anne of the Thousand Days" with Richard Burton and Genevieve Bujold. Good books include Eric Ives, Antonia Fraser and David Starkey's books on Henry's wives (Ives' in particular, as he set out to uncover some of the more blatantly false legends about Anne). Philippa Gregory's books tend to be romantic novels very loosely based on historical characters.

Thanks, will definitely check it out!