Drogo didn't rape Dany

[Ran]

Lets keep it polite, folks.

[ishmael]

However, if we are going by the norms of Westeros: Tyrion is disgusting, naturally inferior, and hated by the gods. His father's and sister's attitude towards him are not in the least wrong, but lenient and highly generous, since as a dwarf, he is a manifestation of sin and wickedness. Throwing him down the well at birth would have been acceptable; given his disgusting deformed condition he should bow down before his father in gratitude for providing for him, and not murdering him at birth or casting him aside as an insult to the Lannister name. Tyrion may not like being treated like a disgusting, inhuman manifestation of sin, but hey, those are the norms of Westeros. It's his job to accept his innate inferiority due to his dwarfism, whether he likes it or not. Jon is an socially inferior and undeserving individual. He has no right to even interact with the far supperior, far better Starks. In addition, he should accept that people should treat him with great distrust, since it is known in Westeros that bastards are innately duplicitous and sneaky. It is his job to accept his innate inferiority as a bastard, whether he likes it or not.

Do you agree with any of the following? Cersei having to sleep with her husband "whether she likes it or not" seems pretty much in the same vein to me. All of these things are accepted as normal and morally correct by Westeros social/ ethical standards. But as 21rst century men and women, i'd hope that we can recognize some issues here.

Where did you come up with "he is a manifestation of sin and wickedness"? Is that in the text, or are you just amking it up because you like the way it sounds? None of what you write has any support in the text, nor is it part of Westeros society. Arranged marriages are a part of their culture. Arranged marriages are a contract. Cersei got to be Queen, in return she was to produce heirs for the King. So yes, having sex with Robert was her duty.

Now that aspect of their society being right or wrong is a whole different discussion. I don't like anything about the concept of arranged marriages, but my 21st century beliefs on the subject don't apply to a fictional book's society or even the corresponding time in real history. You need to lighten up a little on the application of your modern belief system when someone is discussing what is textually accurate beliefs of the society in the books. Those two will never match up. You come across a very angry, condescending, catty, and confrontational. I understand that you are very passionate about a some issues, but constantly arguing about how the belief system in the society of Westeros is so un-21st century appears rather petty after a while. Everyone on here realizes that we operate in much different and better society, not perfect, but better overall. When we discuss what is happening in the book, we have to accept conventions of the society of Westeros whether we agree with them or not.

[Torben]

When we discuss what is happening in the book, we have to accept conventions of the society of Westeros whether we agree with them or not.

This depends on what you mean by "accept". If you mean "to acknowledge the fact that these are the conventions of their society", I agree, if you mean "to judge the events of the story only based on those conventions and not on my own", I disagree.

[Lummel]

... When we discuss what is happening in the book, we have to accept conventions of the society of Westeros whether we agree with them or not.

Disagree entirely.

GRRM is in our times writing to us. The moralities that we see in his story are part of the story and meant to be judged - we can see this because he has built in a range of contrasting moral views in to his world. There really isn't a single set of westerosi conventions that we can say everybody adheres to, Dorne is different to the Reach which is different to the Iron Islands which is differnt to the North which is different to North of the Wall. When we see Randyl Taryl having prostitutes scrubbed with lye soap we're not meant to think 'yeah, thats how things are done in Westeros', we see one extreme man doing something that is at one extreme of a spectrum of attitudes and behaviour towards women (and sex workers in particular).

In addition to there being different attitudes in Westeros we also see cultural change as a theme - look at the Iron Islands, the ultra conservatism of the Greyjoys is contrasted with the Harlaws and other families who are adopting mainland ways and think all that business about the old ways is mad in their day and age!

At times characters even question dominant moral attitudes - eg if bastards are the fruit of lusts then why did the gods create men with those urges (paraphrasing here). The moralities of westeros are part of the dynamic of GRRMs story for example how their ideas of honour and chivalry produce horrible, horrible results for individuals is a huge theme in the book. I don't think that as readers we are meant to sit back and just accept what we are shown as ok in context, what is good and what is bad is at the centre of the book, just think of Davos and Melisandre in the boat before Storms End! But these are questions and issues that, so far, GRRM doesn't give us easy answers for.

[StoneBastard]

I think moral ambiguity is a major theme in ASoIaF, IMHO. GRRM has so many gray characters, each faced with a moral conumdrum at some point in the narrative, often many times. Different religions observed by different cultures and characters, and yes, religion shapes the moral worldview in people. This thread has become interesting.....

[ishmael]

This depends on what you mean by "accept". If you mean "to acknowledge the fact that these are the conventions of their society", I agree, if you mean "to judge the events of the story only based on those conventions and not on my own", I disagree.

You always have to aknowledge and accept the conventions of the soiciety that you are reading or talking about. Do your personal views have any meaning in modern day countries or cultures outside your own? Some it wil and some it won't. That does not make your views or morals wrong, but they are meaningless when applied to another culture or country other than the one in which you reside. Judging the events of the story based only on my modern day morals and standards would be an exercise in futility. I would never be this far in the books if I had to reconcile all of the morally ambiguous situations in ASoIaF with my personal moral views.

[ishmael]

Disagree entirely. GRRM is in our times writing to us. The moralities that we see in his story are part of the story and meant to be judged - we can see this because he has built in a range of contrasting moral views in to his world. There really isn't a single set of westerosi conventions that we can say everybody adheres to, Dorne is different to the Reach which is different to the Iron Islands which is differnt to the North which is different to North of the Wall. When we see Randyl Taryl having prostitutes scrubbed with lye soap we're not meant to think 'yeah, thats how things are done in Westeros', we see one extreme man doing something that is at one extreme of a spectrum of attitudes and behaviour towards women (and sex workers in particular). In addition to there being different attitudes in Westeros we also see cultural change as a theme - look at the Iron Islands, the ultra conservatism of the Greyjoys is contrasted with the Harlaws and other families who are adopting mainland ways and think all that business about the old ways is mad in their day and age! At times characters even question dominant moral attitudes - eg if bastards are the fruit of lusts then why did the gods create men with those urges (paraphrasing here). The moralities of westeros are part of the dynamic of GRRMs story for example how their ideas of honour and chivalry produce horrible, horrible results for individuals is a huge theme in the book. I don't think that as readers we are meant to sit back and just accept what we are shown as ok in context, what is good and what is bad is at the centre of the book, just think of Davos and Melisandre in the boat before Storms End! But these are questions and issues that, so far, GRRM doesn't give us easy answers for.

If the morals and norms of the the society that the story is written about is so meaningless, and we are only supposed to apply and evaluate situations based on our own modern standards, why are we given idications of what each cultures' norms are? There would be no use to establish what is right or wrong in the fictional society if our modern morals are the only way we are to interpret situations.

Each culture has customs that seperate them all of the others, but it is hardly accurate to imply that some concepts are not shared across cultures.

Why isn't it okay to accept what happens in context? I agree that the situations that GRRM presents gives us an opportunity to hash out our own "moral codes" as to what we find acceptable and not. He also is giving us a leason in not being to quick to jump to conclusions. How many times throughout these books have one set of circumstances been implied, only later we are shown more detail about what was going on, and we find out that our first judgement about what was right or wrong is inaccurate because we only thought we knew the details of the situation. Evaluating our own moral compass based on the situations in the book is different that interpreting what is going on in the story through the accepted standards that have been established in the books. Jaime killing Aerys is wrong in the books regardless of why he did it. Nearly every character agrees that Aerys needed to be removed, but all hold Jaime in contempt for him being the one to end the Mad King's reign of terror. However, most readers feel that Jaime made the right moral call to kill Aerys when the decision to burn KL was made.

It does not make a reader wrong to interpret a character's actions as being right or wrong based off of what we know to be acceptable norm established in the books.

[the trees have eyes]

Disagree entirely. GRRM is in our times writing to us. The moralities that we see in his story are part of the story and meant to be judged - we can see this because he has built in a range of contrasting moral views in to his world.

The problem about the first statement is that you would find fault with just about everything. The very first chapter shows Ned taking his children, including seven year old Bran, to learn about justice. Which involves Ned acting as judge, jury and, quite literally, executioner. It makes no real sense to apply our modern legal and ethical standards to this scene which shows capital punishment for breaking your contract of employment (or perhaps parole conditions). It didn't and doesn't leave me feeling that Ned is either an appalling brute or a terrible parent.

If you don't switch off your 21st centry viewpoint and step into the context of Westeros and see the morality of character, the basic truth of a good heart and honourable and generous nature through the prism of a different society, culture and belief system then this must be pretty tough reading. You don't need to abandon your moral compass but there is nothing so powerful in human history as an idea and to judge a person by the standard of that idea in an era long before it has been raised, fought over and accepted is too harsh. You'll only reach one verdict: a damning one.

I completely agree with the second part but not in quite the same way you mean it - it's one of the things that make the books so absorbing.

[Torben]

You always have to aknowledge and accept the conventions of the soiciety that you are reading or talking about.

That's nonsense, I don't have to accept them. If you were correct, I should actually endorse widow burnings, violence against women, killings of homosexuals, anti-semitism, racism etc. because they are acceptable to the society or part of a society where they are being practised.

Judging the events of the story based only on my modern day morals and standards would be an exercise in futility.

Why? I can apply a given set of morals and standards to any scenario and judge the acting people according to those. I don't understand what constitutes "futility" here, since essentially my judgements of these ficticious characters will have no consequences anyway, regardless of whether I apply my own morals to judge them, their own, or the Sith Code.

I would never be this far in the books if I had to reconcile all of the morally ambiguous situations in ASoIaF with my personal moral views.

What do you mean by "reconcile"? I can certainly enjoy reading the books without having to agree with the characters' morals and viewpoints?

[Rainbowbryte]

Ok so I read through about 13 pages of this. I definitely dont think the first time was rape. The second time sounded like crappy uncomfortable sex. She hides her pain and tears from him. So it sounds like he may not have realized she was even upset. Maybe she should have voiced her discomfort.

My take on why she kept quiet about her pain was maybe she didn't want him to know how much pain she was in from riding. The Dothraki considered people who walk instead of riding or can't stay on their horse as being inferior and weak. Maybe she didn't want him to realize how rough it was for her because him and all the rest of the Dothraki may have seen her as weak if she did. Thats just my guess though.

Also some people seemed to believe that if the sex was uncomfortable, even if she didnt say no, or show Drogo any signs of discomfort, or even believe in her mind that it was rape, that it still counts as rape. I think thats a bunch of crap. Uncomfortable or even painful sex is not rape. If he had noticed her crying than yeah that would be messed up for him to continue. The thing is though that he did not notice her discomfort, she hid it from him.

[Rose-Papillon]

I'm copying a post from the Breast thread..

Whoa, hold up, there was a Breast thread? And I missed it? Dammit!

[Melifeather]

Hmm... I think it would be hard to prove that just because she eventually grew accustomed to the practice and gradually enjoyed it does NOT mean that the first time wasn't nonconsentual. She would have LOVED to have said "no," but like oh-so-many college-age girls, the reality is that "no" isn't going to be an acceptable answer. She knew this and reluctantly gave-in. By modern standards, that's rape.

I disagree. The passages I read, I understood that he seduced her.

The first several times that a young girl has sex, it is painful. There's no getting around that. That doesn't mean it was rape.

[jarl the climber]

Whoa, hold up, there was a Breast thread? And I missed it? Dammit!

Yes the breast thread was real and it was spectacular.

[Wmarshal]

It was rape, he climbed in her bed and without asking her put his thing inside her, for a lot of nights.

[mankytoes]

One thing I love about the books, and though I'm a big show fan too I don't think the show quite manages this, is how I feel the world in them is totally separate, I don't think George uses it for analogy or puts across his personal political beliefs. I don't think it's clear from the way the world is portrayed they're written by an American, or even a Westerner (that is with me being English, maybe Chinese readers see it differently).

I think this is very difficult, and you can see this on this thread, most people can't really detach from their own cultural view. Our concept of rape is so different from that of the dothraki that you can't really apply these things.

[Wmarshal]

So when dothraki sack butcher and rape a whole village, we are so suppose to say, "its them doing them"?

[mankytoes]

So when dothraki sack butcher and rape a whole village, we are so suppose to say, "its them doing them"?

Well that's kind of my point, look at the terrible things the dothraki do, and people are criticising Drogo for not receiving positive consent from his wife? I mean how many couples, especially married ones, even today, practise positive consent?

[Wmarshal]

Anyone that is decent and not a rapist.

[mankytoes]

Anyone that is decent and not a rapist.

I find that a bit distasteful. Saying that couples that simply get in bed together and start having sex with no positive consent are mututally raping each other (or the man is raping the woman) reduces rape to a trivial thing, which it clearly isn't.

Dany was put in a horrible position by Viserys, and that's rightly where most of her anger lies.

[Wmarshal]

What is positive consent to you? Because positive isn't what we saw Drogo do. A specially when she cried in pain. When both partners clearly wnt it that sounds like positive consent. Dany was barely a wake, he just put in her while she cried in pain and ache.