Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

Turtyturd

snausages wrote: »

One thing I would say about the books is that they are (obviously) much much longer than the TV show, so statistically they're going to have more scenes involving violence or rape. The show, in my view, should be a condensation of the most important events. So in that view then a literal adaptation of the source might actually be far worse. But even then I wouldn't agree that that's sufficient justification to include those scenes.

Fair play if they removed the rape from the Ramsay Snow scene, because I think that would have been a bit too much. It was a harrowing enough scene as is.

Another thing that does bother me I admit is the thing mentioned by Calex. The apparent normalisation of the Cersei/Jaime romance. I understand in the context of Westeros that it's vile and a taboo, hence the war of the five kings. But it's difficult sometimes to detect how we, the audience, are supposed to feel about it. Should we be disgusted by or invested in their relationship? That I honestly don't know.

This is part of the problem, if the audience cannot decide for themselves how they should feel about certain things then they have to drive it home week after week, which leads to your original complaint.

Da Shins Kelly

I find it kind of hilarious that people are focusing so much on the thematic and aesthetic importance of all the female nudity/violence in the show, and going on that it's a problem with feminism. It's a well-known fact that HBO have an agenda with regards to women and titillation in their programming. That's why there is so much gratuitous female nudity, women standing around naked for no apparent reason, women performing sexual acts in the background, etc. And it's the same reason that men in the show are not sexually exposed to even nearly the same extent.

I don't care if nudity and violence and what have you is included in the show if it actually has relevance and drives the plot forward, as a lot of the violence towards men and children in the show does (whereas I don't really understand how the casual rape of women in the background does), but there's no secret that HBO include a lot of this stuff just for the sake of it and for shock value. They're famous for it. The writer of True Detective has spoken openly about it, and so has a director for Game of Thrones. This idea that it's all done just for artistic reasons is pretty naive.

I'm not a prude, I have no problem with nudity and sex in a show, and I wouldn't care except that it's just so goddamn cynical on HBO's part.

snausages

Turtyturd wrote: »

This is part of the problem, if the audience cannot decide for themselves how they should feel about certain things then they have to drive it home week after week, which leads to your original complaint.

No, I think they're entirely separate issues. With Cersei and Jaime their relationship is extremely unusual and yet it's taken the format of a traditional TV love plot.. with rape and incest. Maybe the subtleties are better expressed in the books (I'm sure they are) but on TV it's a bit confusing sometimes.

Oranage2

The crastor keep scene by by far the best scene in the episode if not the season, since the the guy started drinking out of the skull to the end was breath taking, I'd rate it more exciting than the purple wedding, an even slightly better than the hound fight scene in the bar.

Pat Mustard

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Yeah it is, but I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

Incest is taboo in most societies. It's universal. It is considered to be abhorrent. I would think that most people would consider it objectionable.

I don't think that people would think that it would be okay simply because it was consensual.

December2012

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't think that people would think that it would be okay simply because it was consensual.

The amount of fan theories that suggest Jon and Dany should end up together suggests otherwise - because fans like those characters

username123

The Mustard wrote: »

Incest is taboo in most societies. It's universal. It is considered to be abhorrent. I would think that most people would consider it objectionable.

I don't think that people would think that it would be okay simply because it was consensual.

As a small aside I found it extremely interesting to learn that societies that have languages to describe many different levels of relations also have the strongest incest taboos. So we describe female relatives as sister, mother, grandmother, great grandmother etc, aunt, great aunt, cousin, second cousin, cousin first removed, twice removed etc....

But in more primitive cultures there have been examples of just sister, mother, then one word that basically describes all other women. Their marriage taboos only extend to immediate family, mother, sister. All other women are fine.

Incest between consenting adult relatives is very interesting, we would all agree that incest when one is a minor is totally wrong of course. But there is a phenomena called GSA (genetic sexual attraction) that happens when closely related people are separated from birth (at least the birth of one) and then meet later in life as adults. Because they didn't grow up in close quarters and experience the usual formation of incest taboo, they can be strongly sexually attracted to each other. There are lots of cases in the literature.

The above is just an aside, of course Cersei and Jaimes relationship is not GSA in that sense.

It's interesting that Lady Oleanna was on the high horse regarding sibling sex when Margary was happy to include Loras in a threesome with her and Renly in order to get Renly off so she could get pregnant. I think incest is more accepted than not in Westeros.

Naydy

The Mustard wrote: »

Incest is taboo in most societies. It's universal. It is considered to be abhorrent. I would think that most people would consider it objectionable.

I don't think that people would think that it would be okay simply because it was consensual.

Exactly this. There are different levels of tolerance (it's fine to marry cousins to each other in some countries for example) but sibling relationships and parent/child relationships are pretty much universally abhorred.

username123 wrote: »

Incest between consenting adult relatives is very interesting, we would all agree that incest when one is a minor is totally wrong of course. But there is a phenomena called GSA (genetic sexual attraction) that happens when closely related people are separated from birth (at least the birth of one) and then meet later in life as adults. Because they didn't grow up in close quarters and experience the usual formation of incest taboo, they can be strongly sexually attracted to each other. There are lots of cases in the literature.

I've heard of this alright, it's very interesting. I think it's called the Westermarck effect that causes people who grew up in close quarters to each other as young children to become sexually desensitised to each other later on. There is an intense need to bond between family members who are reunited as adults but the brain often cannot associate the other person as family so this can manifest in very inappropriate ways. These relationships are still abhorred by society though, even when consensual.

The Jaime/Cersei relationship is a really odd one and while obviously disturbing, it also makes for quite intriguing viewing. It does make you wonder why such a destructive and repugnant relationship developed when they grew up together in relative luxury.

Amirani

I'm not sure sibling incest is universally abhorred? Obviously the majority of people find it repulsive because of the general societal view and probably some genetic predisposition for evolutionary reasons. However, it's not illegal in a lot countries and it's not really harming anyone (providing no reproduction is involved).

Obviously things are different in Westeros.

snausages

It doesn't really matter if reproduction is involved or not, incest always carries the risk of conception and dreadful birth deformities/shallowing of the DNA pool. That's reason enough for it to be abhorred.

username123

snausages wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if reproduction is involved or not, incest always carries the risk of conception and dreadful birth deformities/shallowing of the DNA pool. That's reason enough for it to be abhorred.

Actually apparently the risk for genetic abnormalities is not as high as you'd think and considering so many people with known genetic problems in the family line or older people for whom the risk is higher already do procreate,it's probably not much more irresponsible than a lot of procreation out there.

It's been totally acceptable in many successful civilisations, Cleopatra married her brother, Ancient Greek and roman societies were tolerant of it. It's cultural determined whether or not it's tolerated.

As far as incest goes I'm inclined to be a lot more tolerant of sibling incest than other kinds (probably because I see siblings as more equal in a relationship than parent/child even if it's an adult child) as long as it's consenting adults I don't really care what other people get up to in the bedroom. Here or in Westeros!

Sulla Felix

username123 wrote: »

Actually apparently the risk for genetic abnormalities is not as high as you'd think and considering so many people with known genetic problems in the family line or older people for whom the risk is higher already do procreate,it's probably not much more irresponsible than a lot of procreation out there.

It's been totally acceptable in many successful civilisations, Cleopatra married her brother, Ancient Greek and roman societies were tolerant of it. It's cultural determined whether or not it's tolerated.

As far as incest goes I'm inclined to be a lot more tolerant of sibling incest than other kinds (probably because I see siblings as more equal in a relationship than parent/child even if it's an adult child) as long as it's consenting adults I don't really care what other people get up to in the bedroom. Here or in Westeros!

Roman society wasn't tolerant of sibling incest. Off the top of my head, Clodius and Caligula attracted fairly severe approbium and scandal in their lifetime because of rumours of same.

They didn't view matrilineal relatives as blood related though, so you could marry your cousins on your mothers side just fine, but not those on your fathers side. Ditto with nieces and nephews. Emperor Claudius changed the law to allow his marriage to his brothers daughter afair.

username123

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Roman society wasn't tolerant of sibling incest. Off the top of my head, Clodius and Caligula attracted fairly severe approbium and scandal in their lifetime because of rumours of same.

They didn't view matrilineal relatives as blood related though, so you could marry your cousins on your mothers side just fine, but not those on your fathers side. Ditto with nieces and nephews. Emperor Claudius changed the law to allow his marriage to his brothers daughter afair.

Perhaps I was thinking of the Greeks then. The point really being, its a cultural construct whether or not society tolerates it.

December2012

Rape is present because rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

A Song of Ice and Fire is about power.

Power lies where men believe it lies.