On paedophilia and moral relativism

[danm_999]

My own view on the issue is this: 18 and 16 are arbitrary and there is no rational explanation for them. People reach adulthood at different ages. To me, although undoubtedly pedophilia is wrong and a form of rape, but we must ask, why is it wrong? It's wrong because a boy or a girl is physically unable to give consent. Bestiality is wrong for the same reason, the animal is unable to give consent to a human. Now, if a teenager at 15 or 14 is able to give consent, what rational ground do we have to call it immoral? Therefore, it all boils down to the desire of having sex. If one of the parties does not desire sex, then it's rape and it's immoral. If all parties have desired it, then it's not rape.

With this line of reasoning, underage sex is not an issue in Westeros, since we know all the people who have had sex have physically desired it. Danny gets wet and is clearly aroused by Daario, Robb and Jeyne clearly want each other, etc etc. I need no moral relativism because no consensual sex in the books are against my moral compass.

Being attracted to someone is not the same as giving consent to sexual intercourse.

[winterbird]

GRRM has commented on the sex himself saying that there was no concept of "adolescence" in the middle ages. You were a child or you were an adult. The difference was marked at sexual maturity. So once a girl flowered she was a woman. That is the transition from woman to child.

I totally agree with the bit about beheading and such. You cannot condemn a character for acting within the realm of their societies morals. Cersei you can condemn for fixing trials and tampering evidence. She makes people seem guilty so she can string them up. But Ned beheaded a man within the rights of the law. The man broke a vow (one that is held in high regard) and the punishment for that is death. Ned was actually more honorable because he beheaded the man himself. He didn't have another do it for him. He passed the judgement and he swung the sword. It is easier to judge than to carry out the punishment. It makes you really consider the cost of the life and we are given the impression that Ned really felt the loss of every life he had to take.

[the trees have eyes]

Right, but New Hampshire is what, a little over a million people? That's not really going to make it the standard, is it?

In the vast majority of US states, even with parental consent, you need to be at least 16. In Canada, 16. In the UK, 16. In Ireland, 16. In Australia, 16, in New Zealand, 16.

So in the West, 16 is really the standard for marriageable age with parental consent, 18 without.

This is an area we need to be really careful with and I think assuming a norm to be universal because it is what we are used to is dangerous.

A few years back my brother worked in Japan and he was shocked by how grown men dated schoolgirls. I don't want to get into comparing cultural norms but Japan is a large and very much civilised society and the age of consent is 13.

There are also countries in Europe where the age of sexual consent is 14 to add to certain US states where it is 14 or 15 as stated.

There is no universal standard and no unified "western" standard. There is no society that condones sexual activity before puberty but most take differing views as to how long after puberty sexual or marriage relations are acceptable.

[SerStinger]

Being attracted to someone is not the same as giving consent to sexual intercourse.

It means that person has the ability to give consent, so that person should not be subjected to laws which infringe on his/her liberty.

And I'm consistent with this. If I had my way, I'd make 14 the legal age and everyone above that could vote, drink, have sex, buy a house, open a bank account, and face the consequences of their crime.

[danm_999]

This is an area we need to be really careful with and I think assuming a norm to be universal because it is what we are used to is dangerous.

A few years back my brother worked in Japan and he was shocked by how grown men dated schoolgirls. I don't want to get into comparing cultural norms but Japan is a large and very much civilised society and the age of consent is 13.

There are also countries in Europe where the age of sexual consent is 14 to add to certain US states where it is 14 or 15 as stated.

There is no universal standard and no unified "western" standard. There is no society that condones sexual activity before puberty but most take differing views as to how long after puberty sexual or marriage relations are acceptable.

Japan, at least in my opinion, is not really a Western country. And European countries where 14 is the age of consent tend to be Central/Eastern Europe (with the exception of Spain, which is 13 IIRC). So also, not really Western countries.

That leaves us with a handful of irregular US states vs the majority of US states, the UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all of which I consider a stronger representation of "the West". So yeah, generally in the West, you need to be 16 to consent to sex.

[Rhaegar Targaryen's Ghost]

GRRM has commented on the sex himself saying that there was no concept of "adolescence" in the middle ages. You were a child or you were an adult. The difference was marked at sexual maturity. So once a girl flowered she was a woman. That is the transition from woman to child.

this makes sense, and the way it seems is literally one day you're a child, the next an adult. and your life changes just like that. modern societies shows puberty as a progression, culminating with becoming an adult at 18, where as if an 11 year old flowered back then, she was an adult. if a 15 year old still hadn't, she was a child.

[Lannes]

My great, great grandmother was 14 years old when she married my gg grandfather- a 44 year old Civil War veteran. That would've been around 1884 in Georgia, so it wasn't all that long ago around here.

[danm_999]

It means that person has the ability to give consent, so that person should not be subjected to laws which infringe on his/her liberty.

And I'm consistent with this. If I had my way, I'd make 14 the legal age and everyone above that could vote, drink, have sex, buy a house, open a bank account, and face the consequences of their crime.

I disagree that most 14 year olds are capable of giving informed consent in most of the areas you list. Rather, they'd likely become victims of predatory practices to a much more severe extent than 16-18 year olds.

The idea of 14 year olds voting and opening bank accounts deeply troubles me for example, since it's a situation that basically screams out for unscrupulous political groups/financial institutions to exploit them.

[mormont]

Some traditional Roma gypsies and Irish semi nomadic travellers marry off girls even younger than 16, though it's not the norm in their communities any more. Teen marriages were the norm in most pre-industrial Societies, so making a big deal about it in ASOIAF is pointless.

This argument doesn't work, I'm afraid. Westeros is not a real-life pre-industrial society. It's a fictional world written by a modern author for a modern audience. As such, we're perfectly entitled to look at it and ask questions about it from a modern standpoint.

This is especially so when we consider that GRRM already took the decision to remove or ameliorate several aspects of real medieval life by, for example, creating a method of reliable birth control (moon tea), providing better healthcare than existed in comparable periods of history (the maesters), and 'powering up' swords against armour (Valyrian steel). He could just as easily have created a law that defined a minimum age of sexual consent or marriage: in fact it would have been quite easy. Simply make it an article of the Faith that was passed into law by a previous king.

So it's perfectly legitimate to ask why he chose not to do so. I think the answer is simply that the moral questions thrown up by the practice of dynastic marriage to those we would consider 'underage' interested him and were something he wanted to write about. But whether or not you agree with that, the point is it's perfectly legitimate for people to wonder about and question this authorial choice, and to defend it by saying 'well, it happened in real life' is at best an incomplete answer, at worst missing the point.

[winterbird]

Japan, at least in my opinion, is not really a Western country. And European countries where 14 is the age of consent tend to be Central/Eastern Europe (with the exception of Spain, which is 13 IIRC). So also, not really Western countries.

That leaves us with a handful of irregular US states vs the majority of US states, the UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all of which I consider a stronger representation of "the West". So yeah, generally in the West, you need to be 16 to consent to sex.

Again we are imposing modern values on a different time. GRRM has given us the morality of Westeros and the social/cultural norms. You cannot impose our morality on the characters because none of them have grown up in our western culture.

Sansa for example has been groomed to be a lady (meaning among other things to be bedded and produce heirs). Even when thinking of Joffrey before he beheaded her father, she wanted to marry him and have his babies. (she says this). As a girl of 11/12 that was her want/desire in life. Ask a modern 11/12 year old girl what they want to do with their life and they will give you an answer that is reflective of our modern culture: school, college, career, marriage and babies wait until after 30. Sansa was anticipating having children in a few years. The wants/needs/desires of the characters are different in Westeros than they are in our modern culture.

[danm_999]

Again we are imposing modern values on a different time. GRRM has given us the morality of Westeros and the social/cultural norms. You cannot impose our morality on the characters because none of them have grown up in our western culture.

Sansa for example has been groomed to be a lady (meaning among other things to be bedded and produce heirs). Even when thinking of Joffrey before he beheaded her father, she wanted to marry him and have his babies. (she says this). As a girl of 11/12 that was her want/desire in life. Ask a modern 11/12 year old girl what they want to do with their life and they will give you an answer that is reflective of our modern culture: school, college, career, marriage and babies wait until after 30. Sansa was anticipating having children in a few years. The wants/needs/desires of the characters are different in Westeros than they are in our modern culture.

I wasn't making the argument that our values need be imposed on Westeros (though I think they can), I was making the argument that New Hampshire's marriageable age laws are not reflective of Western nations. They're a significant outlier.

[ARYa_Nym]

My great, great grandmother was 14 years old when she married my gg grandfather- a 44 year old Civil War veteran. That would've been around 1884 in Georgia, so it wasn't all that long ago around here.

It wasn't. I've heard many times that Elvis liked young teen girls and Priscilla was like 14 when he first met her but she claimed that they waited until she was legal (or older?). I saw a picture once of all these girls kissing him and some of them looked 13.

http://i44.tinypic.com/27xqzah.jpg

But I think it was legal at the time.

Jerry Lee Lewis also married his 13 year old cousin but he got backlash over that.

[Dunk the Drunk]

The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring constituted betrothal. The full payment of the "bride price" was made on delivery, i.e., when the actual wedding took place. (Since then, the ring has acquired many other symbolic meanings and, indeed, is still used in our modern marriage ceremonies.) The civilizing influence of the church soon refined these primitive customs. According to Roman law and Christian belief, marriage could be built only on the free consent of both partners, and this doctrine was bound to raise the status of women. Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. This also endowed a formerly rather prosaic arrangement with a new dignity.

Unfortunately, at the same time the church created two new problems: It abolished divorce by declaring marriage to be insoluble (except by death) and greatly increased the number of marriage prohibitions. Now there were three basic impediments to marriage: "consanguinity", "affinity", and "spiritual affinity". Consanguinity (i.e., relationship by blood) was interpreted very broadly up to the 6th or even 7th degree. This meant that nobody could marry anyone more closely related than a third cousin. Affinity referred to a mysterious closeness between the two families of husband and wife. Since the latter were seen as having become "one flesh", all relatives on both sides also became related to each other, a circumstance which made marriage between any of them impossible. Spiritual affinity was said to exist between godparents and godchildren with their families.

As a result of these new regulations, the influence of the church on marriage was greatly strengthened. Very often extensive clerical investigations were necessary to prove or disprove the existence of impediments. For example, marriages that had been entered in ignorance or defiance of such impediments were considered null and void. In these cases the church was therefore willing to pronounce an "annulment". Since divorce was no longer permitted, an annulment was the only way of dissolving a marriage, and thus many married couples who had tired of each other sooner or later conveniently discovered some previously overlooked marriage impediment. The church also began to post so-called banns before each wedding, inviting anyone with knowledge of an impediment to come forward. The growing church involvement in marriage could further be seen in the development of a special religious wedding ceremony. In the first Christian centuries marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it remained understood that, even as a sacrament, marriage sprang from the free consent of the two partners, and that therefore neither the parents nor the priest nor the government could affect its validity. It thus became possible for couples to get married secretly if they could not obtain anyone else's approval. It also became possible for very young children to be married, if their parents could coax the necessary consent out of them. Especially aristocratic families often took advantage of this possibility when they found a politically advantageous match for their little sons or daughters. On the average, however, males married in their mid-twenties, and females in their early teens (i.e., soon after their first menstruation).

Today it may be tempting to see medieval marriage in the light of certain lofty religious doctrines and the poetry of the troubadours. However, throughout most of the Middle Ages and for the greater part of the population marriage remained a practical, economic affair. Romantic love hardly had any place in it. Moreover, the social and legal status of women, while somewhat improved in some countries, continued to be very low.

Alas though if people will stick to their modern constructs and their own world views and are unwilling to see that just because they view one societys action as deviant because it differs from their own social norms, why is no one fighting for the case of poor old groomed Lancel Lannister by a much older woman? Or does one have to be a fair maid to be a victim in 'modern standards'?

[SerStinger]

I disagree that most 14 year olds are capable of giving informed consent in most of the areas you list. Rather, they'd likely become victims of predatory practices to a much more severe extent than 16-18 year olds.

The idea of 14 year olds voting and opening bank accounts deeply troubles me for example, since it's a situation that basically screams out for unscrupulous political groups/financial institutions to exploit them.

Well, the society can stop raising stupid kids and this won't happen. We raise the children in a bubble and when they have turned stupid (read that religious, conservative, traditional) people, we let them off to go to the world. Start teaching the real world truths to kids from the beginning and they will not be exploitable in their teenage years.

Plus, the existence of legal possibility doesn't mean that it will happen. Parents can support their sons and daughters and guide them.

The whole society unconsciously knows that in order for the current corrupt system to prevail they must cripple their critical thinking and desires in their rebellious years. That's why children are raised in total seclusion from reality and are unable to do anything until they are "adults" (completely brainwashed).

The real exploitation is happening now- by parents, teachers, and priests, the real villains. They just don't want anyone in their monopoly.

[the trees have eyes]

Japan, at least in my opinion, is not really a Western country. And European countries where 14 is the age of consent tend to be Central/Eastern Europe (with the exception of Spain, which is 13 IIRC). So also, not really Western countries.

That leaves us with a handful of irregular US states vs the majority of US states, the UK, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all of which I consider a stronger representation of "the West". So yeah, generally in the West, you need to be 16 to consent to sex.

But that's just it. There is not a uniform standard and all the issues about "underage" that are getting projected into the books come from an attempt to take different countries' and societies' own attempts to define and codify what is acceptable and turn it into an inviolate standard. Nothing like that really exists so peole project what they are more comfortable with, i.e. act as a product of their society and environment and what they are familiar with.

There has always been a huge amount of inconsistency and contradiction in what defines an adult. At the one hand we are talking about marrital and sexual consent at the age of 16 (13 or 14) but in the same societies people may not be able to drive, vote or drink until the ages of 17, 18 or 21. That is our own approach to growing up.

GRRM shows us Joffrey marrying Margaery and you can be sure he would have bedded her and is old enough to engage in a sexual relatinship with her but he isn't going to rule for years yet. Authorial fiat? Maybe. But it looks more like the approach to that they adopted in the middle ages.

[danm_999]

Well, the society can stop raising stupid kids and this won't happen. We raise the children in a bubble and when they have turned stupid (read that religious, conservative, traditional) people, we let them off to go to the world. Start teaching the real world truths to kids from the beginning and they will not be exploitable in their teenage years.

Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical the issue here is parenting techniques rather than the fact 14 year olds are not yet intellectually or emotional ready to deal with advanced finance, politics and property ownership.

[danm_999]

But that's just it. There is not a uniform standard

Never said there was. I've repeatedly used the word "standard", which means average or common practice.

You're the one that's used the phrases "uniform" and "universal", not me.

[winterbird]

This argument doesn't work, I'm afraid. Westeros is not a real-life pre-industrial society. It's a fictional world written by a modern author for a modern audience. As such, we're perfectly entitled to look at it and ask questions about it from a modern standpoint.

This is especially so when we consider that GRRM already took the decision to remove or ameliorate several aspects of real medieval life by, for example, creating a method of reliable birth control (moon tea), providing better healthcare than existed in comparable periods of history (the maesters), and 'powering up' swords against armour (Valyrian steel). He could just as easily have created a law that defined a minimum age of sexual consent or marriage: in fact it would have been quite easy. Simply make it an article of the Faith that was passed into law by a previous king.

So it's perfectly legitimate to ask why he chose not to do so. I think the answer is simply that the moral questions thrown up by the practice of dynastic marriage to those we would consider 'underage' interested him and were something he wanted to write about. But whether or not you agree with that, the point is it's perfectly legitimate for people to wonder about and question this authorial choice, and to defend it by saying 'well, it happened in real life' is at best an incomplete answer, at worst missing the point.

There was mideveal birth control methods. I had to actually read the primary sources on that one. Some of the things would not hold up to modern standards (things like positioning and position/tying of testicles) but there were also more reliable things as well. The moon tea, I can't vouch for, I don't know if there was a tea in real like that would cause miscarriage, but there are teas that they tell you now not to drink during pregnancy because they cause uterine cramping which can cause problems for early pregnancy. And GRRM isn't the only person to write of something akin to moon tea. I remember reading the same thing in the Mysts of Avalon when Morgaine gets with child.

And the maesters do not have by any standard modern medicine. Plagues still wipe out societies. They seem to have no understanding of germ theories. But in the late middle ages, people did study anatomy and physiology both. They used herbal treatments like the maesters do as well as bleeding and other problematic procedures. They practiced rudimentary surgeries (like amputation to prevent the spread of infection) and had a simple knowledge of how to heal the body. This is consistent as is the fact that these are holy men/scholars and not doctors. There isn't one for every village. They are in the centers of wealth in the kingdom and we see prominent families having access to these scholars and not simple villages. They don't have life saving techniques they have simple herb-lore and the skill to use it. The learning was there even if the practice was not widely available to the common people.

The Valeryan steel is indeed a "power up" but it seems a mysterious and lost technology so it is limited to the wealthy/old families. Yeah it's not consistent with our middle ages, but neither were dragons, others, reanimation, skin changing. Valeryan steel is a mostly magical with spells in the steel according to the books.

These things also seem consistent with the cultural time of the land. In a land where power is secured by the marriage of daughters and producing heirs to secure alliances, why would they create a law against marrying women as early as possible? After all, women were there for wedding and making babies. They weren't allowed in government, they were allowed in scholastic pursuits, they weren't allowed to train at arms without breaking rules. They were allowed to do trade jobs fit for women (sewing, weaving, cooking, possibly farm work) and they were allowed to be whores. For a highborn lady, they were allowed to be wives. Tywin even wanted to marry Cersei off again after Robert's death. She was not supposed to rule. It is men who are making the laws here and men who are arranging marriages for the women. Why would they hinder their progress by making laws that stopped them from their political dealings?

And it was probably better for them if they married the women off earlier rather than later. If you wait until the woman reaches sexual maturity, you run the risk of the woman deciding who/what she wants. If she is sitting in her father's castle she is just as like to fancy the stable boy her own age as she was to like the man she was supposed to marry. If she knows who she is to wed earlier she would be more likely to desire that man (they are banking on the naivety of girls it would seem.... Dany comes to love Drogo after being wed to him at an early age and we saw how willing Sansa was to love the man she was promised to up and until she was wed to a dwarf and if their proximity lasted longer, who knows?)

If the culture of Westeros is like our own middle ages, than they would consider women to be woefully wicked creatures that needed to be ruled. Marriage and promise of marriage earlier was likely to keep a woman from submitting to their baser desires with any man who came along. Our own medieval culture thought women weak and subject to such things. The source material from our own medieval culture on the subject of women is horrible. The fact that they seem to have so much sway in Westeros seems a blessing.

[SerStinger]

Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical the issue here is parenting techniques rather than the fact 14 year olds are not yet intellectually or emotional ready to deal with advanced finance, politics and property ownership.

They are not now, under the current culture. But if they are raised to be they might be. John Stuart Mill could read Plato in Greek when he was 7. It's not like their biology stops them. It's the culture. The culture of our time is better from medieval times in most aspects, but this is not one.

[LandoMCFC]

Could not agree with the poster anymore! GRRM was taking in medieval society into thought! the idea of 18 being the age of adulthood is purely a western and mainly an American ideology! If anyone has ever been to Brazil, there adulthood is still usually marked by puberty, meaning there is ZERO stigmas about a 15 or 16 year old having casual sex because they are an ADULT!