Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Kyriakos, Apr 24, 2014.
He never said that, if we use the terminology of your lot for a moment, he was talking about how they have internal misogyny or have internalized societies misogyny. The women in these arranged marriages expect not have any say in the matter.
Edit: Although I'm not entirely sure of course, but I can't imagine someone saying what you're trying to say he said.
Terx is asking if peoples' feelings were different because greater social mores were different and the answer is, who knows, 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.
I'd just like to remind everyone that rapey is not a real word.
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.
That is not say that this makes marital rape not a big deal in a society where it is deemed alright. Or that it can not be a traumatizing experience. I am not arguing in extremes here, but rather nuances. I don't see how this line of reasoning would make it any less right to uncompromisingly oppose rape.
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
Well it is used and understood.
Real enough to me
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.)
Rapey sounds a bit daft 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.
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.
TIL: Rape culture is really real.
Incidentally, if we're talking about HBO shows, Game of Thrones is nowhere near as 'rapey' as 90s prison drama Oz.
In Oz, the numerous depictions of male-on-male rape reflect the same power dynamic as we see in depictions of male-on-female rape elsewhere, but with another factor brought into play: a change in the victim's gender role, as it is perceived by the ultra-masculine society in which they live. Similar to the examples from Marlowe and Kulick mentioned in my previous post, there is the sense here that masculinity cannot survive the act in question; that having performed the 'female' role, whether by choice or not, the individual in question loses his manhood. Different characters respond to this in different ways. Some are broken by it, and end up as figures of utter contempt. Some accept it as the price of survival, and take on the subordinated role stereotypically occupied by women. And some aim to restore their masculinity by wreaking vengeance on those who robbed them of it, presenting the capacity to dominate others through violence as the defining feature of manliness.
In this way, Oz uses the depiction of rape as a means to forcing transformation on its characters, drawing into sharper focus the ways in which our experiences - and especially those which are most traumatic - interact with prevailing social norms to make us who we are.
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.
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.
That is an interesting analogy to what I am saying. Rape is related to self-worth. If my self-worth as viewed by society is not damaged by martial rape, then this will probably matter for my personal self-worth.
Perhaps in the show, but in the book rape is really very casual and mentioned on every other page. Like a thing that just "happens." It may be leveraged as a point of character development in some instances (Daenerys; the "second rape" I think is less understandable in this regard, except as a means of enhancing the rapists' development), but the primary objection, as I understand it, is how widespread, prevalent, and casual it is.
You are such a protector of decent ethics, Crezth.. Sad that not all here are as considerate or kind..
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.
^Democles would be a good example. Due to obviously mixed-up views on roles he had to kill himself with the help of a steaming cauldron :/
Which does make Demetrios A' look like a monster, but surely also makes it less likely that pederasty or homosexuality were as acceptable as you inferred.
I watched 8 episodes of the first season.
-It seems likely that the tv series is very condenced
-I like the idea of the barrier wall (not what supposedly lies beyond it)
-Sean Bean is great, as usual
-Don't care about the Dragon stuff or the horde
-I hate that council member/brothel owner/ POS guy with the trimmed beard and hope he dies like a pig (yeah, i know that Ned Stark will die soon before him though...) Btw it shouldn't have been so glaringly obvious what he was.
The rest is ok. I had seen around 10 short youtube videos so know a few major spoilers, but that is not much of an issue.
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
You don't have by any chance a sword and happen to have named it?
It'd hardly be out of character...
I'm surprised you haven't read the books Kyriakos, considering you are big on literature.
Didn't read them, but for the same reason.
Well, i am not big on fantasy lit (at least anything other than some Dunsanian stuff). The series looks cool, but i think the actual text would be unlikely to be enjoyed by myself. I'll keep watching the series though
Separate names with a comma.