Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Nevermind
Just keep in mind that you literally said not being raped is entitlement. Like, you wrote those words down. So. Yeah. That's a thing you did.
If I didn't think "rape culture" existed before - well, maybe it still doesn't, but dude, that's a really weird and bad opinion to have.
Well I believe I know. It just makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. I am convinced that personal attitudes matter to the experience of something. And I am convinced that those attitudes are naturally greatly influenced by the attitudes of fellow human beings, which in this case means social norms.Terx is asking if peoples' feelings were different because greater social mores were different and the answer is, who knows
Well Creth's objection seemed to have been focused on the word "entitled". Probably because entitlement has a tradition of being used as the opposite of a right. But I didn't say "not wanting to be raped is an entitlement" and hence that it was no right, but that women felt entitled to not be raped. Am I wrong about this? I don't think so. Would women feel like that in a society were marital rape is a right instead of not being raped? I don't think so. Unless we have a unusual confident woman who opposes the social norm in question I guess, and Crezth's reply is, let's not speculate our way to a position that ends up convincing ourselves without evidence that women handled it better because of more oppressive and rapey mores.
Well it is used and understood.I'd just like to remind everyone that rapey is not a real word.
Which, for the most part, this seems to be consistent with Medieval attitudes, which seem to have treated homosexuality as a sort of embarrassing kink rather than an abhorrence. (A lot of historians think Richard I of England was probably bisexual, for example, but contemporary sources seem to be more concerned with his infidelity than his gender-preferences.)
Well it is used and understood.
Real enough to me![]()
I once watched a documentary on some guy in a South African prison who was kind of the boss there and who also said that the one who screws is not gay. The screwed may not be gay either, but he at least is a female dog. But if he enjoys it - flourishes in the role of the female dog - then he may be viewed as gay.(As it happens, a similar idea also features in anthropologist Don Kulick's The Gender of Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes, wherein he notes that the men who play the 'male' role in a homosexual relationship often are not considered - and do not consider themselves - to be 'gay', and thus are not subject to the same levels of persecution and violence that is inflicted on those men who play the 'female' role.)
Well I believe I know. It just makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. I am convinced that personal attitudes matter to the experience of something. And I am convinced that those attitudes are naturally greatly influenced by the attitudes of fellow human beings, which in this case means social norms.
It makes it likely true to me :shrug: because to me it is not just some hypothesis with some reason but a hypothesis for I which I see very convincing reason. So I disagree that the answer is "who knows". Though you of course can be less convinced and see it that way.But you don't know. You came up with a hypothesis you find reasonable. Something making sense to you doesn't make it likely true.
My impression is that Game of Thrones has the same intention: it's all about character development. Sex and violence are interesting to us not only in a visceral sense, but also because they are transformative - our experiences of them change our personalities and our perceptions of the world. And, while the show offers quite a bit of unashamed fanservice, it seems to me that the decision to change the two scenes in question was made with the intention of making them more believable and, indeed, less sexy.
Yeah, most societies throughout most of history seem to be concerned with the roles played in sex as much as the genders of the participants; masculine and feminine as much as male and female, I suppose. That's presumably why most forms of open homosexuality seem to involve an obvious difference of gender or age (Hijra in India, pederasty in Greek and Japan, etc.), in which the "feminine" partner is socially permitted to take the subordinate role without shame.Christopher Marlowe's Edward II offers an interesting perspective on this subject. At several points in the story it suggests that, while homosexuality per se was not necessarily so much to worry about, far more problematic is the idea of a man (and especially a king) playing the 'female' role in a homosexual relationship. The nature of Edward's demise - which, if we're talking medieval brutality in fiction, is as bad or worse than anything in Game of Thrones - can be taken to reflect society's disgust towards sexual conduct of that type. Marlowe's relatively sympathetic treatment of Edward, and his far less sympathetic treatment of the king's murderers (one of whom is named 'Lightborn', meaning Lucifer) seems to make a comment on the sexual mores of his own time, rather than merely retelling the rumours surrounding Edward's death.
(As it happens, a similar idea also features in anthropologist Don Kulick's The Gender of Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes, wherein he notes that the men who play the 'male' role in a homosexual relationship often are not considered - and do not consider themselves - to be 'gay', and thus are not subject to the same levels of persecution and violence that is inflicted on those men who play the 'female' role.)
PS: i also hope the Mountain guy dies pretty soon as well. Sadly his brother with the equally ugly (and burned) face seems to be still alive for many seasons to come![]()