Violence, rape, and agency in the "gritty fantasies"

[Contrarius]

Where did I say it would be better if it were a child? You are ascribing motivations rather than debating the text.

I don't remember which poster it was at the moment -- I could look it up if you're really interested -- but one participant in this debate did seriously suggest that Terez be depicted as a 12 year old girl, as a preferable alternative to having her be lesbian.

ETA: Okay, it was Kalbear who offered that alternative. Post #126.

[Contrarius]

Hmmm, let's break down Terez: IIRC she is a lesbian from a wealthy "Italian" family who is mean to Jezal. Personally, I think she could be written in a much more sympathetic light. I really don't get why she has to be mean to Jezal or even being mean to him refuse to have sex with him.

Others have already pointed out some of the reasons why she "needs" to be "mean" and/or unsympathetic. For one thing, having guts/spirit/willingness-to-oppose gives more weight to her downfall when she is squashed. For another, her unsympathetic beginning also gives us a bigger arc when we suddenly become sympathetic to her.

Or we might be given insight as to why she thought she could flat out refuse to have sex after being married off.

Now this one, I kinda agree with. But it really has nothing to do with objections to her rape or being lesbian.

Others have suggested she be threatened with something else

And several people, including myself, have pointed out many reasons why those proposed alternatives wouldn't work.

and there is also the possibility she simply be bribed somehow.

Which has no drama whatsoever.

Of course there is the punishing of a woman by gang rape in another book, but I haven't read that one yet.

This might be an interesting example to discuss. Keep in mind, however, that this character is gang-raped because she is a slaver who has herself been responsible for having many female slaves raped and broken. It's an example of "an eye for an eye". Also, IMHO that character's reaction to the gang rape is pretty interesting.

Okay, so -- I'm still waiting hopefully for workable examples of how Abercrombie could have been more "considerate" or "careful" in his depiction of Terez, and how those changes would be materially different from censorship. Anyone? Anyone?

[Kalbear]

Okay, so -- I'm still waiting hopefully for workable examples of how Abercrombie could have been more "considerate" or "careful" in his depiction of Terez, and how those changes would be materially different from censorship. Anyone? Anyone?

And I'm waiting for reasonable reasons why she must be a manhating lesbian for the scene to work when, as you point out, everyone gets raped. (it's like everyone has aids, but for historical times). Anyone? Anyone?

Owait. We've already covered this quite a few times. We get that you don't see any of the examples given as alternatives that would work as well. It's unfortunate that you don't get that we disagree, because we could just move on entirely.

Why a 12-year old getting raped is a bit more workable in this than an uppity lesbian: because no one, anywhere, believes that child rape is acceptable. (or if they do, they're obviously wrong). Because it would be more visceral, not less. Because it would leave no doubt how horrible Glotka is and how horrible Jezal allows himself to be.Because it transgresses more. And it does all of these things without relying on a stereotype. It does this without randomly throwing in a lesbian just so she can be raped and have that extra horrible since she's a lesbian.

And even then it's still problematic because it's still using rape as the way to punish. That if you want to be grim and gritty, well, go for rape! Mutilation, blackmail, disfiguration, magical torture - sorry, but you don't get those if you're a woman. If you're a woman, you get raped.

Actually stating that, here's another way you could make it at least as visceral while not having Terez be a lesbian: have a male cousin be raped to coerce her. There ya go - you get all that rape you clearly need while being somewhat sex-agnostic and flipping conventions on their head somewhat. Terez is now the avenging family member who sees a weaker person get raped and must suffer for them too. Horrible, tragic, blah blah blah.

Here's another one, Contrarius: mind control. Simply have Bayaz reprogram Terez. That's a pretty horrible fate, no? That she's inside screaming while on the outside she's all sexy princess woo? And Glotka can help out in some way so that we see his level of corruption too, if you like.

But really, there's very little I'm going to be able to do to convince you that lesbian rape isn't the best thing ever for this scene, and that the only way that it works is if Terez is a lesbian. Instead, I'll ask you this, Contrarius (fully expecting evasion as you have every other question I've asked): do you think it is at all telling or important or interesting that the only way a plot point works is if a lesbian is raped and another is threatened with rape? Could you possibly see the point that when a very big stereotype of lesbians in mainstream media is that they exist to be raped by men that they have shunned that this could potentially, possibly be a problem in and of itself?

[Kalbear]

Also, Contrarius - let me state this in no uncertain terms: You are absolutely welcome to be on the board. If this isn't clear at all, I'm making it as such right now. I am not wanting you to leave or go to some board where only Abercrombie is discussed. I am not wanting you to leave because I disagree with you. I am not wanting you to leave at all.

I've been on these boards since 2001. At that time there were zero people who had never read the books or knew who GRRM is. Since then we've had a lot of people come by from various places and talk about all sorts of things. Friends of boarders, friends of friends, etc. Nowadays we get a lot of people who come here from linked discussions about other books; Bakker and women, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Morgan, Abraham. Others come here because we have active discussions and a lot of people.

I wondered what you were. That's it.

it's a bit sad to me that after 6 months of being here you haven't read GRRM yet and I'm curious about that too, but I don't blame you for it or think less of you for it. It's just unfortunate.

[Contrarius]

And I'm waiting for reasonable reasons why she must be a manhating lesbian for the scene to work when, as you point out, everyone gets raped.

Been there, done that. Her lesbianism adds that extra level of visceral horror to her predicament. And also adds that extra twist to the subversion of the HEA.

Why a 12-year old getting raped is a bit more workable in this than an uppity lesbian: because no one, anywhere, believes that child rape is acceptable.

And, of course, it would be impossible for Jezal to miss the fact that he's having sex with a 12 year old. Obliviousness is an important part of Jezal's character -- so, removing the possibility for Jezal to remain oblivious would change the character as written.

And also -- nobody, anywhere in Abercrombie's book or in this debate, believes that the rape of lesbians is acceptable. Even Glokta realizes that he has reached a new low at this point.

Oh, and finally -- yes, some folks IRL do believe that raping 12 year olds is acceptable. And we don't even have to restrict ourselves to isolated pedophiles. Just check out some of the offshoots from Mormonism, for example.

It does this without randomly throwing in a lesbian just so she can be raped and have that extra horrible since she's a lesbian.

Since Abercrombie doesn't actually "randomly throw in a lesbian just so she can be raped", once again you're throwing your accusations in the wrong direction.

And even then it's still problematic because it's still using rape as the way to punish.

And yet again -- no, rape is not actually being used by Abercrombie "as the way to punish". The concept of "punishment" has nothing whatsoever to do with the rapes.

Actually stating that, here's another way you could make it at least as visceral while not having Terez be a lesbian: have a male cousin be raped to coerce her.

Aaaaaaaand, we're back to the family. You can't threaten the family, because the whole idea was to ALLY with the family.

Here's another one, Contrarius: mind control. Simply have Bayaz reprogram Terez.

ROFLMAO!!

Where in any of these books is there even the slightest indication that Bayaz has that power???????

do you think it is at all telling or important or interesting that the only way a plot point works is if a lesbian is raped and another is threatened with rape?

Hmmmm. It "tells" us that this is a nasty world. It is "important" in maintaining consistency with agency getting squashed throughout the books. It is "interesting" in making us sympathetic with what was previously a very unsympathetic character. So yes, I'd yes to all three.

Could you possibly see the point that when a very big stereotype of lesbians in mainstream media is that they exist to be raped by men that they have shunned that this could potentially, possibly be a problem in and of itself?

You keep talking about this supposed "very big stereotype", but I have yet to personally see much evidence of it. In fact, of the fantasy books I can currently think of that include lesbian characters, NONE of them utilize this stereotype. Could you perhaps provide some examples to support your claim of this supposed "very big stereotype"??

(Books I can think of at the moment, off the top of my head: Last Argument of Kings, Steel Remains/Cold Commands, Joe Pitt Series, Black Blade Blues series....I'm sure I've read others, they're just not coming to mind right now....)

[Contrarius]

it's a bit sad to me that after 6 months of being here you haven't read GRRM yet and I'm curious about that too, but I don't blame you for it or think less of you for it. It's just unfortunate.

I've started it, twice -- but I do most of my "reading" in audio format, and I couldn't stand the narrator. I'll probably get around to actually reading an e-version, eventually.

[Sci-2]

@Lyanna: Awesome post. I will definitely check out the work you mention. I agree and have said it is the comeuppance of the uppity woman trope that is a problem, that Terez is a lesbian is just poo-icing on the shit cake of that garbage scene.

@Contrarius: We'll have to disagree on what would make the scene workable, though we seem to agree Terez could have been fleshed out more. You also seem to think people are projecting something onto the scene. Well, I think that is true of all readers and their fiction.

One thing that bothers me is when controversial scenes are written, especially about a group the author doesn't belong to, and the fans or the author themselves are surprised or even hurt that the scene then generates controversy.

I will point out Moorcock changed a rape scene in Gloriana. That scene wasn't problematic so much as utter shit as the rapist gets the girl. There was a symbolic thing going on there, which Moore foolishly echoes in Promethea, but upon discussion Moorcock agreed his scene was a problem.

To me the cry of 1984 censorship fear is a silly one. Yes, I will say how I think a scene should be done, I will even suggest subsequent printings of books might be changed. I'll do the same for poorly consider magic systems, idiotic fight scenes, and cardboard characters that rely on ninja bad-assery and sacrasm and the inexplicable magnetism toward hot chicks rather than genuine characterization.

Yet I have no legal or physical power over these authors. If the fear is that my opinions will shift the market so we will have less use of rape as a poorly thought out subplot of entertainment or proof of teh gritty, rather than thoughtful exploration, forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it. We're not talking about Muslims and gays in Dante's Comedy for pete's sakes.

We know about rape because people around us, people we may be close to, are raped. Same with rape camps, gang rape, etc. I once heard a Korean woman who'd survived a Japanese rape camp speak about her experience, and at the end she pulled down her pants so we could see the scars that both her experience and a lifetime of corrective surgery had left her with. So I do think if authors are going to include rape it is appropriation of real victims' experiences, and should be treated with a greater respect than we've found in grimdark fantasy to date.

I also think the threat of rape for straight adult males is low in the Western World, that the rape of homosexual men is higher, and the rape of women is obviously highest. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think it is worth discussing if straight male authors have a greater onus to consider that which will be unlikely to threaten them.

Larry pretty much covered sexual abuse in fiction and the problem many of us have with it. I agree the Terez scene is much less problematic than that of Windup Girl or the gang rape in Cold Commands and hell a ton of other scenes in a ton of other works. Look at the movie Superbad, which apparently is telling us don't ply girls with alcohol to have sex with them....except this is what happens to a "slutty" girl in the movie. So I guess the message is don't ply "good, chaste" girls with alcohol?

Then there are more complex works of greater depth, such as Mieville's The Scar and the easily overlooked fact of Shekel being a rapist. Though there is something complicated going on there, given that IIRC he is, like Tyrion, a child pushed into the act. In fact, if we are going to be arguing over artistic integrity, it might behoove us to consider something that seeks a genuine literary/artistic exploration of the subject.

[Contrarius]

You also seem to think people are projecting something onto the scene. Well, I think that is true of all readers and their fiction.

Sure -- but "projecting" and making outright false accusations are two entirely different things. If a reader is going to object to something an author has written, they should at least object to something that the author has actually written.

I don't know, maybe it's just me -- but, for me, honesty is an essential starting point.....

[Shryke]

Why a 12-year old getting raped is a bit more workable in this than an uppity lesbian: because no one, anywhere, believes that child rape is acceptable. (or if they do, they're obviously wrong). Because it would be more visceral, not less.

It would also leave the reader with no alternative except to say Jezal is a terrible person, which is the opposite of the point.

And secondly, what, you can't have a scene involving something someone somewhere might think is acceptable? Even though the scene obviously indicates "No, this is horrible"?

[Sci-2]

Sure -- but "projecting" and making outright false accusations are two entirely different things. If a reader is going to object to something an author has written, they should at least object to something that the author has actually written.

What do you think is a false accusation? (Yes, I'm seriously asking because while it seems there are two sides here I think that there are nuances and variations in people's opinions.)

ETA: quote

[Contrarius]

Oh rackafratz the rackafratzin rackafratzes.....

I just accidentally deleted a long and detailed and truly brilliant (really, I promise, it was brilliant) post. Dangit.

Sigh. I'll do it again. In awhile, when I stop swearing.

[The Iceman of the North]

@Lyanna: Awesome post. I will definitely check out the work you mention. I agree and have said it is the comeuppance of the uppity woman trope that is a problem, that Terez is a lesbian is just poo-icing on the shit cake of that garbage scene.

In what way is this a 'comeuppance of the uppity woman'? I'm aware of the existance of this trope, but I fail to see how this applies to this particular example.

[Sci-2]

It goes something like this:

Terez is bitchy to Jezal, refuses to have sex with him.

Terez is not just coerced, but broken and humiliated via threats to her lover.

Terez must now not only have sex with Jezal, but "set his cock on fire". She has to pretend to like it.

There is also the fact that the only thing we know about Terez is that she is a lesbian, who is mean, and ends up raped. Seems like people on both sides wonder why she thought she could get away with not having sex at all, and while Contrarius and Lyanna offer reasonable character motivations their absence in the text detracts from the work.

Now, I think several posters have made arguments that I don't agree with but I think are valid:

-The scene accurately and successfully depicts the rape as rape, and as something horrible.

-The scene on its own does not cleave close to or reinforce negative tropes about women or lesbians.

-Every part of this scene is necessary to achieve the final emotional impact of its injustice.

I don't think I am the right person to fully convey the other side, as I don't think the scene is all that great or interesting and that is my general review of TFL in its entirety.

=-=-=

On Shekel and Tyrion - Many have complained, specifically about Tyrion, that his forced rape of Tysha is problematic because it is all about his pain and Tysha vanishes. Here I disagree, and in fact have major problems with people not thinking that what happens to Tyrion (and Shekel in Scar) is a form of sexual assault. To think otherwise, IMHO, is to suggest a level of culpability of child soldiers and children who end up molesting other children that is ignorant of child psychology and vulnerability.

As to not having Tysha's viewpoint, here I may come off as a hypocrite but I think the novel works without it and this isn't an issue for me. We are talking about a scene that is always presented as past-tense, and I think we are presented with the view of one victim (Tyrion).

ETA: "willfully ignorant" to just "ignorant"

ETA II: There's also the molested children becoming villains or demons in horror media that irks me. It is such a ridiculous, harmful, and goddamn fucking lazy trope to explain character motivations.

[SkynJay]

I think you have wrapped this up very nice with that post sciborg. Because I think that is where we are all at. No one should argue that some of these tropes dont exist, nor that they are not at best lazy, when used at times. Your check list points that some of the points we have made are valid, but you don't read the text the same way, which I understand as well.

I completely agree with your second edit, and that rape is being used to often just to show that the baddy is bad, with no thought to the victim.

But as neckbeard #2, I just don't think it has been fairly applied in this particular example. Taken in context of the whole work, I think we are supposed to feel horror for a person we previously had no sympathy for, in a world of full horrors.

Other than that, we have a argument over author intent vs readers understanding, which is just going to keep going in circles, as we dont have Mr Abercrombie's notes handy.

Edit: Oh, and the best thing to come out this argument at all is that I actually have another review site I will continue to visit, so thanks Larry, and I am sorry your threads were both hijacked so badly =)

[Contrarius]

What do you think is a false accusation?

Sigh. Okay, now that I've stopped beating my head on the keyboard, let's try this again. This will, of course, not be nearly as Awesome as my original response, but it will have to do.

There have been many many dishonest claims made throughout this debate. My list below is probably not at all complete, but it'll give you a rough idea.

1. (non-Abercrombie) -- Larry accused Donaldson of "Having a protagonist rape a female character to prove to himself that the world wasn't real, not to mention the relative lack of remorse or major consequences". In fact, neither the purported motivation nor consequences for the rape were as Larry depicted them.

2. Kalbear has claimed that Terez was raped "for being a lesbian", that "the punishment for her being a lesbian is institutionalized rape", and that Abercrombie is "using rape as the way to punish". This is not at all true. In reality, Terez was coerced into sex because she refused to have sex with the king -- regardless of her sexual orientation. The coercion had nothing to do with punishment, and everything to do with producing heirs.

3. Kalbear has claimed that "Terez's character is essentially only defined by her being a lesbian", and Dazed Bastard has claimed that she is "defined solely by her sexual preference". This is not at all true. Terez is first defined by her beauty, breeding/family connections, poise, etc. (thus building up the HEA idea); then further defined by her ego, defiance, and condescension (thus starting to tear down the HEA and make her unsympathetic); and, only at the end, given the further attribute of being lesbian -- along with making her fiercely protective of her lover (thus making us newly sympathetic for her, and twisting the knife on the HEA's destruction).

4. Kalbear has complained about a supposed "sheer detail and titillation factor" and "massive detail" in the rape scene, and Seli has claimed that "The rape is in plain sight". In reality, we don't see the actual rape AT ALL.

5. Kalbear has claimed that "Abercrombie glorifies the rape of a lesbian". This is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing "glorified" about any part of Terez's situation.

6. Kalbear has claimed that Abercrombie "made lesbianism something wrong" and "Abercrombies world is anti-lesbianism". In reality, there is nothing in any of Abercrombie's books to suggest that either Abercrombie or the society of the Union thinks there is a single thing morally wrong with lesbianism.

7. TerraPrime has attempted to compare Abercrombie's work to "fantasy fiction featuring a race of beings with lighter skin continuously subjugating a race of people with darker skins" and depicting "black people as lazy and uneducated", and Kalbear has attempted to compare Abercrombie to a theoretical novel in which "all slaves were black and all slavemasters were white" -- thus implying that Abercrombie only abuses one gender. This, obviously, is completely false.

8. TerraPrime has claimed that Abercrombie's treatment of Terez fits "a narrative" in which "all they (lesbians) need is a good fucking from a man to set them right"; and Kalbear has claimed that Abercrombie has created Terez as a character "who just needs a deep dicking to set her straight". In fact, nothing about Abercrombie's treatment of Terez shows her being "set right" or "set straight" from her lesbianism in any way.

There ya go. Just a few false accusations being thrown around to enliven the conversation. ;)

[Sci-2]

@SkynJay: I also think there is something to be said for the idea that Terez is a character that is presented in a manner that we expect and are made eager for her comeuppance BUT then we see what that "comeuppance" actually is and this not only makes her more sympathetic but challenges our own narrative awareness.

Mind you, I still have problems with the scene, but I do see validity in that argument as well and I think that is the one Contrarius and Shryke are making.

[ZombieWife]

Sigh. Okay, now that I've stopped beating my head on the keyboard, let's try this again. This will, of course, not be nearly as Awesome as my original response, but it will have to do.

There have been many many dishonest claims made throughout this debate. My list below is probably not at all complete, but it'll give you a rough idea.

1. (non-Abercrombie) -- Larry accused Donaldson of "Having a protagonist rape a female character to prove to himself that the world wasn't real, not to mention the relative lack of remorse or major consequences". In fact, neither the purported motivation nor consequences for the rape were as Larry depicted them.

2. Kalbear has claimed that Terez was raped "for being a lesbian", that "the punishment for her being a lesbian is institutionalized rape", and that Abercrombie is "using rape as the way to punish". This is not at all true. In reality, Terez was coerced into sex because she refused to have sex with the king -- regardless of her sexual orientation. The coercion had nothing to do with punishment, and everything to do with producing heirs.

3. Kalbear has claimed that "Terez's character is essentially only defined by her being a lesbian", and Dazed Bastard has claimed that she is "defined solely by her sexual preference". This is not at all true. Terez is first defined by her beauty, breeding/family connections, poise, etc. (thus building up the HEA idea); then further defined by her ego, defiance, and condescension (thus starting to tear down the HEA and make her unsympathetic); and, only at the end, given the further attribute of being lesbian -- along with making her fiercely protective of her lover (thus making us newly sympathetic for her, and twisting the knife on the HEA's destruction).

4. Kalbear has complained about a supposed "sheer detail and titillation factor" and "massive detail" in the rape scene, and Seli has claimed that "The rape is in plain sight". In reality, we don't see the actual rape AT ALL.

5. Kalbear has claimed that "Abercrombie glorifies the rape of a lesbian". This is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing "glorified" about any part of Terez's situation.

6. Kalbear has claimed that Abercrombie "made lesbianism something wrong" and "Abercrombies world is anti-lesbianism". In reality, there is nothing in any of Abercrombie's books to suggest that either Abercrombie or the society of the Union thinks there is a single thing morally wrong with lesbianism.

7. TerraPrime has attempted to compare Abercrombie's work to "fantasy fiction featuring a race of beings with lighter skin continuously subjugating a race of people with darker skins" and depicting "black people as lazy and uneducated", and Kalbear has attempted to compare Abercrombie to a theoretical novel in which "all slaves were black and all slavemasters were white" -- thus implying that Abercrombie only abuses one gender. This, obviously, is completely false.

8. TerraPrime has claimed that Abercrombie's treatment of Terez fits "a narrative" in which "all they (lesbians) need is a good fucking from a man to set them right"; and Kalbear has claimed that Abercrombie has created Terez as a character "who just needs a deep dicking to set her straight". In fact, nothing about Abercrombie's treatment of Terez shows her being "set right" or "set straight" from her lesbianism in any way.

There ya go. Just a few false accusations being thrown around to enliven the conversation. ;)

Thank you.

I read some of this to my lesbian friends and sent the thread to 2 others I know online and their response has been unanimous: "Why is everyone so focused on the fact that this is a lesbian and not just a woman? I don't walk around telling people, hey, I'm a lesbian, treat me differently. I walk around with the mentality that I'm a woman and I want to be treated like a human being."

One friend wrote: "let's say I'm a character in a story. I don't want people to say, 'hey, that's the coolest lesbian character I've ever read,' I want them to say, 'that's the coolest CHARACTER.' Why is my sexuality even part of this equation?"

Another wrote that she had (in fact) read the book series by Abercrombie and doesn't recall seeing any "man-hating lesbianism" in the character nor seeing anything that led her to believe that Glokta was trying to get the "gay fucked out of her." She ended her email with, "They know this is a piece of fiction, right?"

The only one who mentioned that she didn't appreciate rape said that she doesn't like reading about rape in any form and usually avoids those types of stories altogether, but knows that fiction includes these things--horrific things--but that she prefers not to read about it. (She's a social worker.)

I know it's not scientific here (and it's 4 people). I was going in hoping that one of them might be able to shed some light and help me see the other side better. It kind of blew up in my face. So, it is what it is.

I just wish I could see logic in the argument that others are telling an author of a better way to have handled his/her work. I can't get past that. It's invincibly arrogant and completely defeats the notion of artistic freedom in my mind. It could just be the way I'm wired. And that's fine.

I'm with Contrarius. I feel like I'd continue to beat my head on the keyboard on this. I also feel like even though Contrarius has pretty much spelled it out above, it's not gonna make a dent. But, for what it's worth, Contrarius, I definitely appreciated it. :) I think you're wasting your time, though.

[Grack21]

Allow me to reinsert into the conversation a bit. I was thinking about terrible books in another thread and I thought of Nicholas' Orcs Trilogy came to mind. You want to read something really disgusting written obviously to get the read off? Read the first 50 pages of that tripe. Basically some half orc queen gives a dude bonerpills then rapes him to death. The whole thing extremely disturbing as the basic idea is men can't be raped because we like it. Plus itd writte like something from a bad porn. Long description of the queens pubes? No thanks. And its like 8 pages long.

Later she rapes an elf maiden using a unicorn as a dildo. *barf*

[Contrarius]

I read some of this to my lesbian friends and sent the thread to 2 others I know online and their response has been unanimous: "Why is everyone so focused on the fact that this is a lesbian and not just a woman? I don't walk around telling people, hey, I'm a lesbian, treat me differently. I walk around with the mentality that I'm a woman and I want to be treated like a human being."

Ahhh, interesting responses!

I'm with Contrarius. I feel like I'd continue to beat my head on the keyboard on this. I also feel like even though Contrarius has pretty much spelled it out above, it's not gonna make a dent. But, for what it's worth, Contrarius, I definitely appreciated it. :) I think you're wasting your time, though.

Thanks, ZW!

I do want to make one thing clear, though -- I was beating my head on the keyboard because I deleted my original response, not because of Sciborg's question. While I do think the factually false accusations were fairly obvious already, IMHO listing them discretely is a useful way to separate them from the mere disagreements of interpretation. So I've got no major complaint with Sciborg asking me to do that. :)

[Sci-2]

I just wish I could see logic in the argument that others are telling an author of a better way to have handled his/her work. I can't get past that. It's invincibly arrogant and completely defeats the notion of artistic freedom in my mind. It could just be the way I'm wired. And that's fine.

ETA: Outside of Terez being a lesbian, do they have problems with the scene in question?

This only holds if there is legal or physical coercion IMO. Criticism if the lifeblood of art isn't it? As I noted above, upon discussion with a female friend Moorcock removed the rape scene from his book. Mind you, that scene is way more of a problem since the rape resulted in the guy getting the girl.

As for artistic freedom, I think it is important to realize that one should have just as much freedom to criticize media. Where I think the line needs to be drawn is casting aspersions on the author (which I think has largely been avoided) or the pursuit of legal censorship. <- On the latter, of course people will differ from me. I prefer the vote with your wallet approach, but one does wonder about modern works echoing Birth of a Nation and copious amounts of rape porn.

@Grack21 -> I agree with you that there is a problem when people think men cannot be sexually assaulted, or cannot be pushed into sexual acts they do not fully want to be part of. It goes back to Tyrion for me and what I see is a clear sexual assault of him by his father, regardless that Tywin does not touch him but orders him to have sex with Tysha against her will.

While I am not well acquainted with it, this is my big problem with fiction often written by straight women featuring men involved in rape or "dubious consent". I cannot help but see such a thing as heterosexuals co-opting the rape of gay men for their personal arousal.