The 'Sorta' Mad King?

[James Arryn]

the "rule of thumb" applies to setting cement, i.e. If the indentation of the thumb remains, it would be ok to build upon it. I believe its from the roman times.

Nit picking I know, but its fun.

Lol, yes. I was using it in the accepted misconceived way about the practice you were characterizing. No such rule ever existed that we know of,, but when it is mentioned it is called the 'Rule of the Thumb'.

[SeanF]

As I said, *some* people in Westeros think marital rape is wrong (even if it's legal) just as *some* people thought it was wrong in medieval Europe. Martin isn't projecting an idea that is solely shared by modern readers into his society.

Beating children is an interesting case, as there are plenty of people in the most liberal, democratic societies who think it is a reasonable form of punishment. Likewise, plenty of people in such societies view capital punishment as legitimate. Others see them both as abhorrent.

[James Arryn]

As I said, *some* people in Westeros think marital rape is wrong (even if it's legal) just as *some* people thought it was wrong in medieval Europe. Martin isn't projecting an idea that is solely shared by modern readers into his society.

Beating children is an interesting case, as there are plenty of people in the most liberal, democratic societies who think it is a reasonable form of punishment. Likewise, plenty of people in such societies view capital punishment as legitimate. Others see them both as abhorrent.

What sources do you have that people in the medieval world even conceived of the concept of marital rape, let alone considered it wrong?

And, if you do think you know of an example or two, presenting them as 'some did, some didn't' would be a gross misrepresentation of the medieval mind.

[Theda Baratheon]

But it's not 'my' reasoning. I don't have some strange, individual, OUT THERE belief that committing rape makes you a rapist. Rape is the act of forcing sex on an non consenting individual, regardless of whether or not that used to be a crime IS NOT THE QUESTION HERE. If you commit rape you are a rapist, I'm really confused as to why you are trying to argue otherwise?

[James Arryn]

But it's not 'my' reasoning. I don't have some strange, individual, OUT THERE belief that committing rape makes you a rapist. Rape is the act of forcing sex on an non consenting individual, regardless of whether or not that used to be a crime IS NOT THE QUESTION HERE. If you commit rape you are a rapist, I'm really confused as to why you are trying to argue otherwise?

Okay, please address my hypothetical.

In the future, sexual consent is defined as written agreement.

Are we then all rapists?

[TheBlackBard]

I'm not saying that people wouldn't of seen it as wrong, but to use it as a case for insanity in a wold where its probably common practice is a bit much. now getting aroused after melting someones flesh off....now that is a good case for insanity.

@ James Aryyn, I know what you were syaing, I just like to be an arse :wideeyed:.

i did think that there was proof for the beating your wife with a stick thing though, I may have just misread/remembered though...... my brain doesnt retain information very well.

[TheBlackBard]

Okay, please address my hypothetical.

In the future, sexual consent is defined as written agreement.

Are we then all rapists?

I have to agree with my man James here, if its not considered rape at the time of thie incident you cant be a rapist. If that were the case the whole population of Westerose would be considered paedophiles..

[Theda Baratheon]

Okay, please address my hypothetical.

In the future, sexual consent is defined as written agreement.

Are we then all rapists?

Then we all better have a pen and paper handy.

[Narea]

What some people seem unable to grasp is that marital rape in context of medieval marriage did not exist. Once couple married the husband had rights, the wife had duties and no right to deny her husband his rights. When husband beat his wife it did not reflect too badly on him, it reflected badly on the wife because she failed to perform her duties to her husbands satisfaction. Sure, beating her meant that everyone knew that said husband had disobedient wife but that most likely meant that he was too easy on her before...It's somewhat similar with marriage bed. It was assumed that consent was given at the wedding and as such the wife had to be willing at any later date her husband deemed to exert his right. In fact, if his wife decided to deny him his rights and be very difficult about it, he would have been well within his legal rights to call a constable to help him exert them. That wouldn't have made for a good impression of his prowess, however, and so was rarely, if ever used.

In medieval setting anything bad happening to a woman was that woman's fault. You can still see this mindset in more (even some less) traditional Muslim countries.

[James Arryn]

Then we all better have a pen and paper handy.

Want to try a real response?

The thing is, we have not reached the zenith of moral evolution. That we think we have only says we are exactly like everyone who has come before us.

We would think it absurd to label ourselves as criminals, rapists, abusers etc. along the lines of whatever people hundreds of years from now will agree is moral or immoral, but some seem to ave no difficulty doing it for people in the past. This assumption of a monopoly on moral certitude is problematic for me.

I think we should judge people in the past exactly as we judge each other now; according to the moral standards of the time and place in which they lived.

Calling where we differ from people in history our awareness of absolutes which they ignored is exactly what they thought of themselves back then when contrasted with the people who came before them, and will undoubtedly be true of those who come after us.

Which is the point my hypothetical attempts to address. Your unwillingness to address it seriously can be interpreted in various ways. I hope you will give me a real answer now that I have expanded the context for the question.

[Theda Baratheon]

Want to try a real response?

The thing is, we have not reached the zenith of moral evolution. That we think we have only says we are exactly like everyone who has come before us.

We would think it absurd to label ourselves as criminals, rapists, abusers etc. along the lines of whatever people hundreds of years from now will agree is moral or immoral, but some seem to ave no difficulty doing it for people in the past. This assumption of a monopoly on moral certitude is problematic for me.

I think we should judge people in the past exactly as we judge each other now; according to the moral standards of the time and place in which they lived.

Calling where we differ from people in history our awareness of absolutes which they ignored is exactly what they thought of themselves back then when contrasted with the people who came before them, and will undoubtedly be true of those who come after us.

Which is the point my hypothetical attempts to address. Your unwillingness to address it seriously can be interpreted in various ways. I hope you will give me a real answer now that I have expanded the context for the question.

Jesus christ, you've really gotten aggro. (I realise that's not a proper argument and is perhaps childish to say, but whoah)

The pen and paper remark was obviously a joke.

Listen, I don't really care enough to argue with you because I think we're arguing about different things here.

I don't disagree with the fact that there are certain laws in place at certain times and I can not look into the future so I don't really know what is happening.

Anyway, I'm confused as to what we're arguing and I'm not really interested in arguing about it.

I'm pretty much accepting all of that you've written anyway.

[King.In.Yellow]

Actually around the medievile time it you wasnt considred rape if it was your wife, it was seen as the mans right to bed his wife even if she wasn't wiling.. marital rape is a relatively new thing. It was also legal to beat your wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than your thumb up until quite recently.

Ahhh the good old days!

Dude, you're confusing positive law (the law valid in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time) with natural-law rules (transcendent of culture and place, almost universal among humans).

Rape is a crime in every human society, as is murder. Marital rape is also a crime. The fact that the law is blind to this doesn't make it less of a crime in the eyes of the people.

[TheBlackBard]

Dude, you're confusing positive law (the law valid in a certain jurisdiction at a certain time) with natural-law rules (transcendent of culture and place, almost universal among humans).

Rape is a crime in every human society, as is murder. Marital rape is also a crime. The fact that the law is blind to this doesn't make it less of a crime in the eyes of the people.

Not really, as we have said maritl rape is against the law now, i dont know how you can consider martial rape a "natural" law if it has only been introduced in western countries in the last 50 years or so . if it were, it would of always been against the law such as theft has.

With theft the punishments have changed (you cant go choping hands off anymore), with marital rape a new law has been added.

Another good example is slavery, perfectly acceptable in the past.....now not so much.

[Mr Hodor]

Not really, as we have said maritl rape is against the law now, i dont know how you can consider martial rape a "natural" law if it has only been introduced in western countries in the last 50 years or so . if it were, it would of always been against the law such as theft has.

With theft the punishments have changed (you cant go choping hands off anymore), with marital rape a new law has been added.

Another good example is slavery, perfectly acceptable in the past.....now not so much.

Even if it is not a punishable crime, raping your wife would be atleast considered crime against women in any society. If it wasnt a crime why did jamie want to save the queen

[mcb]

Is that the same thing seeing as how she was his wife? I'm not saying raping your sister and/or marrying her isn't wrong but they are Targaryen's afterall. Who knows what they were actually up to half the time?

Fine, let's assume for the sake of this particular argument that it wasn't rape. (It was, just for the record.)

And, with that assumption in mind... watching someone burn alive (on his orders) made Aerys extra horny. That's fucking psycho.

[TheBlackBard]

Even if it is not a punishable crime, raping your wife would be atleast considered crime against women in any society. If it wasnt a crime why did jamie want to save the queen

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "not a punishable crime"? Crimes have punishments, if they didnt they wouldn't be crimes. And as we have already stated, in medievil time it was considered the wifes "duty" she didnt have a say it it. look back to the begining of Dany's and Drogo's relationship, he just mounted her like a horse and that wasn't rape.

also can you be more spacific on the "Jaime wanted to save the queen" please? I more info before i can answer.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

also can you be more spacific on the "Jaime wanted to save the queen" please? I more info before i can answer.

Too lazy to open the books ;-) ? Jaime was standing standing guard outside their bedchamber when the queen was raped. He wanted to interfere with Aerys' treatment of Rhaella, however he was told that his duty to obey the King superseded his duty to protect the queen.

And yes, as has been said above, if even Jaime Lannister can recognize something as bad, then you can't just say "oh, noone could have known you're not supposed to do that". And it's not that his superior scratched his head and wondered how anyone could object to rape or anything, he did not dispute that there was bad stuff happening, he just believed it wasn't their place to stop it.

[TheBlackBard]

I'm hard at work at the minute so I dont have access :wideeyed: .

Just because it was morally wrong it doesn't mean its illegal. Its wrong to lie but you're not going to do any time for it. I'm sure no decent person who heard that would think "oh, that sounds like fun, I wonder if I can get in on it", it would of sounded awful. unfortuantly though it was his right as her husband. It wasn't that "noone could of known you can't do that" they knew they could do it. What Jaime thinks is irrelevant.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Fine, let's assume for the sake of this particular argument that it wasn't rape. (It was, just for the record.)

And, with that assumption in mind... watching someone burn alive (on his orders) made Aerys extra horny. That's fucking psycho.

i'm not arguing that rape isn't wrong. Or that here and now, in the real world that it isn't a horrible crime. Of course it is. My point was would westeros society see that as crazy considering rape is prevalent. It's still wrong but its pretty common. Later I did some research and saw that the rape itself was least of it. He bit, beat, and other stuff too. I conceded to being uninformed and do so again. Let me off the hook!

[Full-Faced Braavosi]

Woah, this rape discussion has gone a bit off the rails. To add some borders to this abstract painting:

1. As far as rape merely describes the act of non-consenual sex, then yes "rape is rape" without regard to morality or conventional thinking. Similarly, one who rapes is a rapist.

2a. If you hold that there is some natural law or objective morality, then rape is immoral/moral regardless of what humans think at a given time.

2b. If there is no natural law or objective morality and "morality" truly describes only preferences of an individual, then each person is capable of describing what is "right" and "wrong" (i.e. preferable and not-preferabble to him- or herself) and there is no true discussion to be had.

3. If there is some natural law or objective morality and as far as we intend to and are able to direct our own conventions towards those higher ones, our understanding of right and wrong will continue to evolve.

There remains the question as to how we retroactively consider acts that our understanding has evolved to consider immoral in present times.

4a. If we are to say that in the past, people were immoral for doing X (as we understand it now), we must open ourselves to being judged for seemingly benign acts now that are later considered immoral.

4b. We might also say that act X is and was immoral, but a person was not strictly immoral for doing it, as there was no human recognition of that moral law. Or perhaps, he was immoral but there is no judgment attached to such designation.

There are a thousand and one examples of things done in history that we consider immoral now and another thousand and one that were not done because they were considered immoral then that we have no problem with now. I think we all have to accept that fact as well as our own judgment by the future. It seems so obvious to us that such things were horrible and wrong (and I'm sure many at the time agreed with us), but it's not always easy to recognize that in a society (especially during the ages where there was a lack of intellectual thought and progress). Hell, I imagine that we'll some day be judged for murdering trees so that we could read these books

To return to the question of the thread, while I think we all agree that marital rape is still rape and that rape is wrong, that in and of itself does not necessarily make him insane (though he was... he was very insane).

(Aside: I'm not sure the example of requiring "written consent" is a valid question unless you can explain how written consent changes the moral consideration over verbal consent (as it doesn't seem to naturally change the consideration.))