The Use of Rape in ASoIaF: The Critics Speak

[Ser Lewis]

Holy fuck balls that was a long post. My brain hurts.

And who gets raped in Good Will Hunting. I seemed to have forgotten that part.

I think Will was sexually abused as a child. Or it is implied to have been that way.

Interesting points. IMO male rape is referred to in the series but not necessarily witnessed. For example in ACoK when Arya hands Jaqen Hagar a drink, Rorge says the following to her with the belief that she is a boy:

"Come closer," Rorge said, "and I'll shove that stick up your bunghole and fuck you bloody."

So although I do think that it isn't featured heavily, it certainly is referred to, in some form or another throughout the series.

[Woftis]

She seems a bit obsessed with rape to be honest. She doesn't really know where she's going with it either; one second she's saying it's unrealistic then she takes a u-turn to say fans will argue it's meant to be unrealistic so why not remove it anyway? Pick a point and stick with it, don't just try to cover every angle to prove yourself right.

Secondly, it hits me as absolutely ridiculous that she would ask why Batman or James Bond were not raped. Surely if she's trying to make a serious point she could come up with a better example than this?

She's just a complete fucking glue pot that should keep her comments about censorship to herself.

[Iotun]

Here's an interesting thought for you all - how much are we, and the author, to blame for considering that rape is not something that happens to men, and we just laugh off situations when they happen to men, that would have seen much worse had they happened to a woman?

Here's a question - doesn't Ygritte essentially rape Jon? Jon initially resists her advances, he wants not to have sex with her because of his vows, and even when they do eventally have sex he feels guilt over it. Yet after Ygritte defends him to Mance Rayder, she forces herself on him against his wishes, because now they have to 'prove' that they sleeping together.

You can argue that they have to have sex to prove their relationship in order to save Jon's life, but they can still arguably just sleep together or hide, and most importantly, Ygritte's intent is is not really to prove a point to Mance, but to have sex. You can argue that Jon eventally likes it and falls in love with her, but there are examples of women who have fallen in love with their rapists (Dany for example, especially in the TV series were her sex scene with Drogo is more forced than in the books), and we still consider them as rape. You can argue that Jon deep down wants to have sex, but at the end of the day, when he weighs his sexual desires with what he considers to be his honorable obligations, he still decides not to go with it. Jon, whatever his inner conflict and desires, says no, and he only has sex because he is forced to do so.

Think of it in another way - what if the gender roles were reversed. Jon is a female prisoner and Ygritte her male guard, and when the prison warden is angry with the female prisoner, the guard 'defends' her by saying she is his lover, and then forces himself on her in the night so that they can 'prove' the point. Would we not be outraged? Would we not consider it unacepptable? But when it happens to Jon, we think its no big deal, we even laugh with it along with the author. Because society has conditioned us to the idea that men are tough, they are always horny, they always really want to fuck even when they say no, and when they are forced to so, its not really rape. Think to the TV shows - Yggrite is constantly making sexally suggestive comments to Jon who has made it clear he is not interested, she gyrates her ass all over him while they sleep which makes it uncomfortable, but we are never bothered by it as much as we would be if a man was constantly making sexual suggestion to a woman, and pressing his crotch against her ass against her will. We would call that sexual harassment and unacceptable, but we sort of laugh it off when it happens to a man, because 'men can't be sexually assaulted'. I'm not saying it makes the books worse off, any more than I'm saying that the cases of female rape in the books make it worse off. Ygritte is more sexually liberated than the conservative Jon, so its realistic that she forces herself on him. I'm just making a point of the different expectations set by society. Even in the modern world - if a husband forces himself on his wife when she doesn't want to have sex, its domestic abuse, when a wife forces her husband to have sex when he doesn't want to, its her making him carry off his 'marital obligations'. And please don't take this that I'm supporting either situation, or even that I think they're equivalent, since when a male forces himself on a woman, its typically much more likely to occur with a realistic threat of, or actual use of, physical force, which in itself makes the experience much more emotionally scarring. But the societal conditioning is still there.

[Idreamedofyou]

I'd still argue that rape is a power-play, which includes humiliation.

I was thinking about one example that came up in a lecture. Lecturer mentioned that from Viking Age there has been found runes stating that should something unwanted (graverobbing, stealing, mischief etc.) happen, the perpetrator will be raped in the ass. The interpretation possibly being that in a Viking society rape is not necessarily a question of sexuality, but a form of punishment and means to humiliate the other participant. If the raped one is a man, there's still no 'abnormal sexual stigma' to the raper, because he's doing the penetration and being the active one dealing out the 'punishment'/'retaliation'.

I'm not exactly trying to draw a parallel from Vikings to ASOIAF, but a lack of this aspect (using rape as means to diminish and humiliate your opponents) makes me wonder. Is it that odd a thought in a rather violent society?

And finally I am very sorry if I'm being too unclear trying to explain myself. The subject is touchy and by no means I wish to offend anyone.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The interpretation possibly being that in a Viking society rape is not necessarily a question of sexuality, but a form of punishment and means to humiliate the other participant. If the raped one is a man, there's still no 'abnormal sexual stigma' to the raper, because he's doing the penetration and being the active one dealing out the 'punishment'/'retaliation'.

IIRC, in Viking society, there was no stigma about homosexuality as such: it was more whether you were the penetrator or the penetratee. No-one cared about the former, but the latter was considered grossly embarrassing. Thus being 'raped up the arse' implies being subjected to humiliation.

[mormont]

lotun: part of the problem with this comparison is shown by the bits you have to add to your analogy. For example;

then forces himself on her in the night so that they can 'prove' the point

IIRC, Ygritte did not force herself on Jon in the night. In addition, you're claiming that Jon was 'not interested' - this is not really a fair characterisation. Jon was interested, in that he was sexually attracted to Ygritte: he refrained from sleeping with her only out of a sense of honour. It's still aggressive sexual behaviour to pursue someone in those circumstances, of course, but the thing is that Jon did not (and could not) have explained this to Ygritte. She knows that he is attracted to her, does not know why he refuses to pursue that attraction, and works to find a way to get him to pursue a mutual sexual relationship. That's still problematic in a number of ways, but not in anything like the same way as what happens to Lollys. I think the closer analogy is with Dany/Drogo - in the sense that it's sexual relationship that involves some problematic power dynamics, but which not everyone would see as clear-cut rape.

And I'm not sure that the author intends us to 'laugh at it'. I didn't. I didn't flinch from it, for sure, but I sympathised with Jon's internal struggle over it.

[SeanF]

And I'm not sure that the author intends us to 'laugh at it'. I didn't. I didn't flinch from it, for sure, but I sympathised with Jon's internal struggle over it.

I think a lot of men reading those chapters would find it hard to empathise with a man who's taken a vow of celibacy and just think "Jon should be so lucky" - but I agree that's not the author's intention.

[WunWunAintDone]

Sam was arguably raped, that lady said she was going to throw him off the boat if he didnt have sex with Gilly

[Iotun]

lotun: part of the problem with this comparison is shown by the bits you have to add to your analogy. For example;

IIRC, Ygritte did not force herself on Jon in the night. In addition, you're claiming that Jon was 'not interested' - this is not really a fair characterisation. Jon was interested, in that he was sexually attracted to Ygritte: he refrained from sleeping with her only out of a sense of honour. It's still aggressive sexual behaviour to pursue someone in those circumstances, of course, but the thing is that Jon did not (and could not) have explained this to Ygritte. She knows that he is attracted to her, does not know why he refuses to pursue that attraction, and works to find a way to get him to pursue a mutual sexual relationship. That's still problematic in a number of ways, but not in anything like the same way as what happens to Lollys. I think the closer analogy is with Dany/Drogo - in the sense that it's sexual relationship that involves some problematic power dynamics, but which not everyone would see as clear-cut rape.

And I'm not sure that the author intends us to 'laugh at it'. I didn't. I didn't flinch from it, for sure, but I sympathised with Jon's internal struggle over it.

Well I'm certainly not saying that its anything like what happens to Lollys. And I'm also not disagreeing that Jon secretly wants to. But the fact is, Jon also wants to keep his 'honor', he is in fact very obsessive about it. And in his internal struggle between his honor and his urges, he always chooses his honor until he is forced to do otherwise. Yes, maybe he himself is unhappy that he chooses honor. And yes, maybe we can argue that for us, his logic on what 'honor' is, is illogical, but for a young noble boy in his world, it obviously is not illogical, and its something that he holds dear to as part of his identity. Ygritte may not be holding a knife at his throad, but the sex between them comes not because of consent by Jon, but out of an implicit threat of force: if Jon doesn't go along with it, and Mance somehow finds out, either by Ygritte or somebody else telling him, then Mance will kill him - and Ygritte herself actual seems to enjoy the situation rather than show compassion for Jon's predicament (which you can argue, is understandable, as from her perspective she doesn't understand Jon's notion of honor). But the fact is, no matter how you cut it, whetever his inner strugles, Jon is forced to have sex (his very first time as well), when internally he is either not ready for, or hasn't justified it to himself, against his will, and that is rape. You wouldn't justify male rape over a woman as 'Well she actually secretly wanted to, and was trying to find a way to have some'.

Now again, I'm not saying its either as traumaric or violent as any other instances of rape in the book, but I am saying that for many readers, the thought doesn't even cross their mind to call it rape, because of social conditioning. So its a bit disingenious to complain about the lack of male rape, if when we are presented with it we just ignore it.

[Harle The Handsome]

Thats an entirely different sort of discussion though.

At what point do a persons's rights over the sanctity of their own body over-ride agreements they are fully complicit to and happily enjoying the benefits of?

In this case, Cersei is Queen, something she was happy to be and greatly enjoyed exercising the benefits of. But not enjoying some of the duties - and duties they are too. The primary duty of a Queen is to ensure the Dynasty continues, and she knew that going into the marriage.

This reminds me of a quote from The Handmaid's Tale

"My red skirt is hitched up to my waist, though no higher. Below it the Commander is fucking. What he is fucking is the lower part of my body. I do not say making love, because this is not what he's doing. Copulating too would be inaccurate, because it would imply two people and only one is involved. Nor does rape cover it: nothing is going on here that I haven't signed up for." (page 94)

Another add on to the "Black" watch. We do know that there was consensual sex between men at The Wall, so rape was not an acceptable sexual outlet. Garth and Alf of Runnymudd is the first one that comes to mind.

[Baelor Swyft]

Not to bog you down with hours of writing, I'll simply say I agree with this thread's premise. It's not that there isn't sexual violence towards men in this series, nor that there shouldn't be sexual violence towards women in this series. The issue for me is the sheer volume of female sexual abuse Martin chooses to imbue the series with. A little bit, heck even a lot would have made sense .But this much is just absurd. Everywhere you turn there's a 13 year old whore, and he dwells on it so much. It even sometimes gets to the extent of writing sleazy literotica fantasies about it (like Dany's first time with Drogo).

For such a brilliantly balanced and progressive series, it still has some blind spots. Give me one good graphic scene of some Night's Watchman raping another Night's Watchman and then them falling in love like Dany did with Drogo, and I'll be satiated and convinced that GRRM's goal is to show how disturbed and perilous this world is.

Admittedly, women are generally more into rape literature than guys are (50 Shades, anyone?) so this isn't exactly a gendered issue or an issue of George being some misogynist (obviously he's not). The problem is that bombarding us with such a wide variety of rape, ranging in portrayal from obviously bad to middling to downright positive, has the effect of desensitizing and normalizing the rape. I would definitely like to see the reaction from the male public at large (particularly the GoT viewing audience), if instead of women, this story was hinged on a million instances of men being raped. I don't think the reaction would be the same.

[SeanF]

Someone on another thread described Arya's story as a "medieval fantasy version of the Killing Fields." And a lot her chapters (particularly in ACOK) are difficult reading. But, I really don't think that Martin goes overboard in depicting violence (including sexual violence) and I don't think he depicts it to titillate the readers or provide cheap shocks. His aim is to portray the pity and horror of war.

[Cas Stark]

It seems to me GRRM has done a fairly good job of presenting males as victims of sexual violence in a realistic way--he makes it subtle and hidden--the way it is in real life and probably the way it would have been in a middle ages society. Rape of women has always been out in the open, always considered a part of war and occuring on a wider scale than rape of men.

[mormont]

Well I'm certainly not saying that its anything like what happens to Lollys.

No, I realise that - didn't mean to imply otherwise. :) I'm just choosing the most unambiguous example that came to mind.

Ygritte may not be holding a knife at his throad, but the sex between them comes not because of consent by Jon, but out of an implicit threat of force: if Jon doesn't go along with it, and Mance somehow finds out, either by Ygritte or somebody else telling him, then Mance will kill him

This seems to me to be an oversimplification and even a bit of a reach. The situation is more fairly characterised as being that if Mance comes to believe that Jon's conversion is less than genuine, he will kill him. It's possible for Jon to risk rejecting Ygritte and hoping to find an alternative way to persuade Mance of his sincerity.

It's also worth noting that Ygritte wants to sleep with Jon, but she also does not want him to die! She intervenes primarily because of the latter, not the former. She's not using the threat of force to extract sex, she's trying to protect him from that threat. I totally disagree with the claim that she doesn't show 'compassion' for Jon's predicament: she very clearly does show compassion for Jon. The issue is that she isn't actually aware of the full extent of his predicament, because he doesn't tell her. She thinks his predicament is that Mance is suspicious of him. She does not know that his actual predicament is that he's still loyal to his oaths, because he's on a secret mission. (She might, I suppose, have some suspicion of the type, but if so it's very vague and ill-formed.)

But the fact is, no matter how you cut it, whetever his inner strugles, Jon is forced to have sex (his very first time as well), when internally he is either not ready for, or hasn't justified it to himself, against his will, and that is rape.

I disagree. Circumstances conspire to leave him little realistic choice, but that is not the same as being forced and is entirely different from being raped. It's much more complicated than that: he wants to have sex, but he doesn't want to break his vow. He can thus be said to both want and not want the situation. You can't disregard the former any more than you can disregard the latter. Both Jon's desire and his reluctance are valid elements of his feelings. The situation is much too complicated to be simply characterised as 'rape', IMO.

You wouldn't justify male rape over a woman as 'Well she actually secretly wanted to, and was trying to find a way to have some'.

I'm sorry, but this is a straw man.

[Woman of War]

I'd still argue that rape is a power-play, which includes humiliation

Agree very much. Rape or better said sexual abuse is not first of all about having sex, about finding a sexual outlet, it is about domination and humiliation.

And here we have a well known, widely and heatedly discussed topic: the rape of Tysha

This is indeed an example of rape as not sexual but political act by using sexuality as means.

The first victim obviously is Tysha, no need to further describe that horror. She was meant to know her place and taken as example to teach everyone a lesson about what Lannister expects. And the second victim of sexual abuse as power tool is the child Tyrion. No, he was not penetrated but there is a good reason that today's laws put sexual assault of children on the same punishment level as penetration.

Tyrion was forced by his father into unwanted sexual activity and the fact that he himself reacted with an erection does not take from him being a victim here. This by the way is typical for sexual abuse of male children for porn production where sexual arousal is induced by stimulation or drugs. It does not make them less a victim even if they commit sexual acts under these circumstances. And that horrid father Tywin may have been more than a drug. Actually this is the technique of abusers: you wanted it, do not complain now, to turn victims into accomplices, and, today, thus preventing them from going to the police. For sure even the child Tyrion could have refused his father if the family dynamics had been different - only they weren't. And for sure Tyrion himself never saw mitigating circumstances in his age: "she was my wife"

But this horrible event is a masterpiece of describing that sexual abuse is indeed a power game, no matter if it is turned against male or female victims, and not first of all about sex.

I know what kind of debate might come now since there have already been a hundred threads about it: Tyrion the misogynist. I'll stay away from that debate.

But here we indeed have the most "prominent" example of sexual abuse in a male person, not yet a man but a child. And we see what sexual assault is about in fact, in both children.

[Theda Baratheon]

Male rape/sexual abuse

1. Maester Kerwin on Victarion's Ship
   
   
2. Male Sex Workers and Sex Slaves
   
   
3. The threat of Rape to Arya when Biter and Rorge thought she was a young boy.
   
   
4. Lyn Corbray with his ''boys''
   
   
5. The possible sexual abuse of Aeron by Euron.
   
   
6. The possible sexual abuse of Tomnen by Joffrey.
   
7. Septon Utt is a paedophile who prefers young boys.
   
8. Theon/Reek
   

There is also quite a few threats like ''i'll shove this sword somewhere____''

and I'd say the eunuchs, mutilating their genitalia is a form of sexual abuse.

As mentioned, Tyrion DOES commit rape.

I do tend to agree more with your latter points, OP. That the amount of Rape is there to show how horrible this world is, and to show why so many women/if not all women (highborn and low) fear the possibility of being raped. And that this is glorified in NO way and is actually showing a huge FAILURE in society.

I don't think it's too gratutious, there is a lot of rape in the books and perhaps a bit too much, but I don't think it's a cheap tactic used to ''shock'' the audience like a lot of authors use.

Shae's backstory, according to her, was that she ran away from home when her Father tried to make her his wench/whore. So her awful comment about Lollys could in fact be a coping mechanism of sorts, it doesn't excuse it, but it's just to show that Shae herself was also a victim of sexual abuse.

[straits]

I have a question: Has pretty, young, vulnerable Satin ever expressed or exhibited a fear of rape while at the Wall? It's been a long while since I've read the books, I honestly can not remember.

I am under the impression that part of why Satin is Jon's steward is for protection from possible rape. This has been brought up before, but I don't remember the thread.

[Born Yesterday]

The Night's Watch is not a prison. It is a free Brotherhood that you just can't leave. In prison, the warders couldn't give a sh*t about if you get raped or not.

In the Watch, if someone rapes you, you go to Lord Mormont, and he executes the perpitrator, end of problem.

That's a completely arbitrary assumption. You think that the Men of the Night's Watch would be comfortable to report their own rape? Men in the army today don't do that. (And neither do women. Seriously, it's a spectacularly under-reported crime).

First of all, the military comes with peculiarities: reporting your fellow-soldiers for any transgression, against yourself or others, clashes with the concepts of "camaraderie" and "hierarchy" and "tradition" (say, the tradition of initiating a rookie with a sexual assault of some sort) that the army is often so fond of.

But that's secondary. Before we even get there, we have a fundamental obstacle: in Westerosi society (with the possible exception of Dorne), no man would openly admit that another man fucked him, consensually or not. There might be exceptions, but only in very special circumstances, and these can't be found in the Night's Watch.

The Night's Watch is a place where I'd expect both consensual sex and rapes to be common, but under a wrap of silence. Happens all the time, everyone pretends it doesn't.

And I always found it odd that none of our "eyes" on the Wall ever mentioned anything of the sort. I didn't expect them to say it out loud of course, but we have access to the characters' personal thoughts, and I'd expect someone to notice, or at least guess.

Frankly, I'm not sure if Martin gave it much thought, or consciously decided to not make a big deal out of it, or what. Perhaps those off-hand remarks about Satin indicate that he simply didn't imagine it that way. Perhaps he imagined that sex, consensual or otherwise, does NOT happen on the Wall generally speaking, except when a particularly pretty and/or effeminate boy gets recruited.

Is that realistic? Probably not. But is it grossly unrealistic, taking into account the hush-hush attitude that would certainly affect the storytelling? Nah, I don't think so.

tl;dr

I'm on the 'could do better', not 'fatally flawed' camp.

[Theda Baratheon]

I am under the impression that part of why Satin is Jon's steward is for protection from possible rape. This has been brought up before, but I don't remember the thread.

Isnt Jon uncomfortable with the way some of the Night's Watch members look at Satin?

[straits]

Isnt Jon uncomfortable with the way some of the Night's Watch members look at Satin?

Yes, and I think that it would have been more than looks if he wasn't under Jon's wing. That's what is suggested, anyways.