Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    Naux wrote: »
    Check out post #7 ................gets across my point better than I can methinks!!
    The Mustard wrote: »
    Completely agree OP. The human rights abuses in Westeros are absolutely appalling. There should be trade sanctions, if not outright UN intervention.



    So because it's fiction, it's not worthy of analysis. Alrighty so


  • Options
    #153
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    snausages wrote: »
    Sorry, I meant the book. I haven't seen the film either, I heard it was too sanitised actually.

    I think they should show some rape because it is an important and unavoidable aspect of the world. But they do not need to show half as much as they're showing. I'm kind of tired of explaining that tbh. The stuff that they're currently showing is unrelenting and extremely graphic when it doesn't need to be.

    But thats your subjective opinion, I think its fine.

    I dont even think its that graphic.


  • Options
    #154
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    username123 wrote: »
    But thats your subjective opinion, I think its fine.

    I dont even think its that graphic.

    Fair enough, it's clear that both of us are firmly entrenched in our own views that were not going to change each other's minds. But can you at least see the point I'm making?


  • Options
    #155
    drumswan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭drumswan


    snausages wrote: »
    The stuff that they're currently showing is unrelenting and extremely graphic when it doesn't need to be.
    Its not graphic, its clearly all simulation?!? Its not as if they are showing penetration


  • Options
    #156
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    snausages wrote: »
    Fair enough, it's clear that both of us are firmly entrenched in our own views that were not going to change each other's minds. But can you at least see the point I'm making?

    Of course, but it came across to me as though you were stating it as objective fact, when it is really just subjective opinion.

    I mean, they dont NEED to show anything, they could just have George there reading the books and letting our imaginations run riot - but somehow I cant imagine that making such good tv.

    They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    username123 wrote: »
    Of course, but it came across to me as though you were stating it as objective fact, when it is really just subjective opinion.

    I actually made a deliberate point in most of my posts to include expressions like 'I think' and 'my view is...' and 'I feel that' etc. So I think you're being unfair.


  • Options
    #158
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    drumswan wrote: »
    Its not graphic, its clearly all simulation?!? Its not as if they are showing penetration
    It's vivid and looks very realistic.

    I hate being a pedant but here you go
    graph·ic [graf-ik] Show IPA
    adjective Also, graph·i·cal.
    1.
    giving a clear and effective picture; vivid: a graphic account of an earthquake.
    2.
    pertaining to the use of diagrams, graphs, mathematical curves, or the like; diagrammatic.
    3.
    of, pertaining to, or expressed by writing: graphic symbols.
    4.
    written, inscribed, or drawn.
    5.
    depicted in a realistic or vivid manner: graphic sex and violence.


  • Options
    #159
    Naux
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭Naux


    username123 wrote: »
    They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.

    +1


  • Options
    #160
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    username123 wrote: »
    So is it not better then, that we are shown, because our imaginations will conjure up much worse than we are shown - a fact used extensively in the best horror movies.

    I think that both imagined and graphic violence have their places.

    On the one hand, there is extreme violence that can make your hair stand on end. HBO's Rome has this in spades, especially with the ultra-violent Titus Pullo. There is one particularly visceral scene where
    he beats a slave to death
    .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHswN9_lkKw


    On the other end of the graphic scale, there is violence that is not shown. For some reason, the youtube embedding is not working for me, but it's a scene at the end of the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake, where a gunshot is heard off-screen, to signify a violent death (the second off-screen gunshot in that film).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapFQlsF36I


  • Options
    #161
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    snausages wrote: »
    I actually made a deliberate point in most of my posts to include expressions like 'I think' and 'my view is...' and 'I feel that' etc. So I think you're being unfair.

    Ok - sure. Forget my last post - here is the rewritten version.
    Of course, but thats not objective fact, its just subjective opinion.

    I mean, they dont NEED to show anything, they could just have George there reading the books and letting our imaginations run riot - but somehow I cant imagine that making such good tv.

    They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.

    Ther same point holds, I simply dont feel you are presenting a compelling argument as to why they shouldnt show rape etc, or why they shouldnt show so much of it, as your argument rests on your own subjective opinion. (which is fine btw, but it doesnt compel me, who has a different subjective interpretation).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    Well you yourself posted that you can't apply an objective appraisal to subjective opinion (or words to that effect), a point I'd agree with. It's not as if there's a way to measure how much sexual violence is acceptable and where the threshold exists. However, I really think they've went past it at this point.


  • Options
    #163
    username123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭username123


    snausages wrote: »
    Well you yourself posted that you can't apply an objective appraisal to subjective opinion (or words to that effect), a point I'd agree with. It's not as if there's a way to measure how much sexual violence is acceptable and where the threshold exists. However, I really think they've went past it at this point.

    Exactly. Im sure there are plenty of other people who feel that way too, just not me.

    Ive seen some depictions of violence that made me turn off tv but I think Ive become largely desensitised through random internet usage - things that used to shock me wouldnt even cause a second glance now. Not sure if thats a good or bad thing!


  • Options
    #164
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,171 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

    Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment
    Ned has his head hacked off
    I was utterly hooked.

    What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...


  • Options
    #165
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment
    Ned has his head hacked off
    I was utterly hooked.

    Good point. It would be a fairly blinkered approach to isolate the sexual violence.

    George Martin is selling sensationalism. It's ShockHorror stuff every step of the way, with all sorts of treachery and shenanigans. It's not just violence, but violence is essential to his stories.

    This is not a criticism btw. I'm definitely a fan.


  • Options
    #166
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    Sleepy wrote: »
    If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

    Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment
    Ned has his head hacked off
    I was utterly hooked.

    What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...

    While I don't dispute that gender privilege is a real thing, I think the context it gets thrown into a lot of the time these days, in online discussions especially, does more to shut out intelligent and insightful debate about these issues than encourage it.


  • Options
    #167
    snausages
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭snausages


    My point being, I don't think being a straight white male should be used against people to make them feel that they,ve nothing worth saying


  • Options
    #168
    Naydy
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭Naydy


    Sleepy wrote: »
    If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

    Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment
    Ned has his head hacked off
    I was utterly hooked.

    What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...

    If the scene with Ned getting his head cut off had been needless graphic I probably wouldn't have liked it either. It was a really emotive scene without needing to resort to that. I'd argue that showing too much would have ruined what they did manage to do in that scene, which was show the horror of what happened reflected in his daughters' grief.

    I've counted one person who didn't like the scene who mentioned rape culture. I don't think it's fair to dismiss our views as having an ulterior motive for some anti-men, ultra-feminist agenda. I certainly don't think the shows writers are rape apologists or that people who have no problem with these scenes are misogynistic or something ridiculous like that, I just don't like what they are doing with these scenes. In particular the Jaime/Cersei scene


  • Options
    #169
    calex71
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,126 ✭✭✭✭calex71


    the incest seems to be flying under the radar in this discussion, not that its related at all to the OP just figured it would get mentioned more seeing as the discussion has turned to the sensationalism. To me that was actually worse than the graphic stuff in how matter of fact they present it in the show, it comes across as 2 people as opposed to what it really is .... brother and sister at it.

    To me that seems deliberate by HBO, you can emphasise the rape all you like just don't remind people a brother and sister are at it . I know in ep 3 it wasn't close to that and that they were less subtle but for the most part it has been that way.


  • Options
    #170
    Paddy Cow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    snausages wrote: »
    Per a suggestion in the *not read the books thread*, I thought I'd set this up because every episode thread every week is getting derailed by this.

    Now, I'm no social justice campaigner or Tumblr white knight, but I really feel some of the violent sex scenes with women in this show are excessive and detract more than they add to the series. Last night in particular had one of the worst scenes I've seen on TV and I don't consider myself a sensitive pansy usually. From what I've heard from others the books don't even go as far as the show does. At this stage it doesn't really feel like these scenes still hold a purpose, or at least the point they're trying to make has become a bit obscure. Life in Westeros is **** for women, but do they need to reinforce that fact every single week?

    That's just how I feel anyway. It's not enough to prevent me from tuning in every week but it dampens my enthusiasm for the series in general.
    As a book reader, I can assure you that rape is far more prevalent and graphic in the books than is depicted in the show. When Arya is at Harrenhal, women who were seen as collaborators were put in the stocks and anyone who fancied a go could have at them and there was pretty much always someone who wanted a go. Imagine if they had put that in the show? A ten year old girl witnessing rape every time she had to cross the yard to get something for her Lord? There would be outrage.

    There is another scene (only in the books) where some Lord is overthrown and the rebels decide to host a banquet. The Lord is strapped into a chair with something shoved into his mouth so he can't speak and his wife and daughters are made to serve the rebels. As the night goes on, the rebels start raping his family one by one (his youngest daughter is only 12) and it made for very uncomfortable reading. As bad as it was to read, I couldn't imagine watching that.

    Ramsay in the show is a sadist but even what he does to Theon is nothing compared to what he does in the books. Last week when he set his dogs on that terrified girl was not what he would've really done. Normally he sets a girl loose and if she gives him an interesting chase, he will show her "mercy" and simply rape her before killing her. If she is "weak" and stops running too early for his liking, he will rape her and then flay her alive.

    We have seen all manners of depravity on this show:

    A child pushed from a window to what the person thought was certain death
    Beheadings
    Someone having their tongue ripped out
    Cruel domestic violence
    A baby ripped from it's mother's arms and killed in front of her eyes
    Bastard children drowned
    Men being killed in battle
    A father engaging in incest
    Babies left in the show to die or worse
    Slavery
    Young boys being castrated and trained to be killers from about age 4
    Children being nailed to crosses
    Innocent villagers slaughtered
    Cannibalism
    Men being nailed to crosses while screaming in agony

    The list could go on.

    It's ironic that people were complaining about how the take over of Mereen happened without a huge battle, in which people (mainly men) would've died in violent circumstances and this is somehow "cheating" the viewer and wasn't realistic. We have become desensitised to violence to men and just see it as part of the story but sexual violence against women still evokes a strong reaction and makes us uncomfortable.

    I think a few posters have hit the nail on the head when they say that the rape scene hit home because rape is the one crime that still happens today. We know that babies aren't going to be murdered or sacrificed, men won't have their tongue/penis cut off and we don't have to worry about being sold into a life of slavery but women still do get raped in modern society. We can watch all the terrible sh!tty things people do to each other in Westeros with a sort of detached fascination, safe in the knowledge that it's only a fantasy world and while we wonder how we would react in those circumstances, we know that it's not going to happen to us or our loved ones.

    As someone said, the Craster scene took them out of the fantasy because it was real. Honestly OP, while I understand the rape scenes make you uncomfortable, I don't think the writers are shoe horning them in just for gratuitous purposes. Compared to the books, I think they have toned down those type of scenes. The Craster scene is made up but they left plenty out.

    Just as an aside, another scene which really got to people this week was Hodor being picked on by the mutineers. It wasn't the most depraved thing we've seen (Brienne being thrown into the bear pit is arguably worse) but bullying is something people of today can relate to and it's another example of how real the show became for some.


  • Options
    #171
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    To me, the Jaime/Cersei scene just seemed completely implausible.

    For a start,
    a brother and sister are riding each other
    . Let's kind of run with that for a while and see where that goes.

    So he loves his sister.
    Like really loves his sister, in every possible sense of the word.

    And then he rapes her. What? What?!! What is he doing? How does that possibly add up at all? It just made no sense to me, whatsoever.

    I have to say that the scene kind of annoyed me. I thought that Jaime was evolving as a character and I was just starting to like him, and then he does this. The appalling aspect of it aside, it was frankly ridiculous. I completely realise that George Martin is quite happy to piss off his fans in this way or to paint characters as being ambiguous, but I just found the scene incredible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,539 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    The Mustard wrote: »
    To me, the Jaime/Cersei scene just seemed completely implausible.

    For a start,
    a brother and sister are riding each other
    . Let's kind of run with that for a while and see where that goes.

    So he loves his sister.
    Like really loves his sister, in every possible sense of the word.

    And then he rapes her. What? What?!! What is he doing? How does that possibly add up at all? It just made no sense to me, whatsoever.

    I have to say that the scene kind of annoyed me. I thought that Jaime was evolving as a character and I was just starting to like him, and then he does this. The appalling aspect of it aside, it was frankly ridiculous. I completely realise that George Martin is quite happy to piss off his fans in this way, but I just found it incredible.

    Directors didn't shoot it as a rape, just came across that way.

    Lena Headey even gave an interview saying that wasn't how it was meant.


  • Options
    #173
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Blay wrote: »
    Directors didn't shoot it as a rape, just came across that way.

    Lena Headey even gave an interview saying that wasn't how it was meant.

    Looked totally
    rapey
    to me, dude.


  • Options
    #174
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,539 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Looked totally
    rapey
    to me, dude.

    Well I'm going to go with the opinions of the actors who actually shot the scene.


  • Options
    #175
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Blay wrote: »
    Well I'm going to go with the opinions of the actors who actually shot the scene.

    Hard to argue with that. But how did you think that it looked? It did not look like consent to me.


  • Options
    #176
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,539 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    The Mustard wrote: »
    Hard to argue with that. But how did you think that it looked? It did not look like consent to me.

    Well it wasn't very clearly directed but you have to factor in that the guy has one hand so if she really wanted to stop him she probably could have.

    They were obviously shooting it with Cersei being reluctant rather than non consenting so they didn't have her really struggling against him.


  • Options
    #177
    DM addict
    Registered Users Posts: 567 ✭✭✭DM addict


    I would agree that it did not look consensual.

    But, going from book knowledge, I understand Cersei's primary objection to be "not here" as opposed to "no sex". Also someone, somewhere on the internet, made the very good point that sex is a power play for Cersei - she doesn't want to lose control of the situation, and Jamie is tired of being used and abused by her, and pushes the point home (no pun intended).

    Let's face it, even twincestous relationships have a line. Clearly screwing in a sept next to your dead son is where the line is for her.

    Was that clear enough from what we saw onscreen? No. It came across as twincest rape with a fetching dead-child-in-a-church backdrop. Which is just. . . I have no words for the wrongness.

    I am surprised that no one in the production team got the rapey vibe. I think, shot somewhat differently, it would come across as just twincest in a church with a dead child - less rapey, and I guess better?

    It is a really tough scene though. I would like to point out that I do not believe that "continuing to sex someone until the give up" counts as consent - I am very much of the opinion that "No" means "No", and that the "she meant later, not no" excuse is not ok in the real world. But, as you may have gathered, the whole screwing your sister next to your dead child also doesn't sit well with me. And thankfully, Westeros is NOT the real world.


  • Options
    #178
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Blay wrote: »
    Well it wasn't very clearly directed but you have to factor in that the guy has one hand so if she really wanted to stop him she probably could have.

    They were obviously shooting it with Cersei being reluctant rather than non consenting so they didn't have her really struggling against him.

    I haven't read all of the books so I will have to concede the point to you, but I have to say,
    it didn't look like reluctance to me, it looked like downright refusal on Cersei's part.

    I looked for the 'no means yes' aspect and I didn't see it. At all. What I am saying is that judging by what I saw, it looked like a rape scene in the HBO series, as opposed to what may be in the books. I find it odd that the actors do not allude to the scene being at least ambiguous, if it is not a rape scene

    Is it possible that the Game of Thrones people are screwing with our heads?


  • Options
    #179
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    DM addict wrote: »
    I would agree that it did not look consensual.

    But, going from book knowledge, I understand Cersei's primary objection to be "not here" as opposed to "no sex". Also someone, somewhere on the internet, made the very good point that sex is a power play for Cersei - she doesn't want to lose control of the situation, and Jamie is tired of being used and abused by her, and pushes the point home (no pun intended).

    Let's face it, even twincestous relationships have a line. Clearly screwing in a sept next to your dead son is where the line is for her.

    Was that clear enough from what we saw onscreen? No. It came across as twincest rape with a fetching dead-child-in-a-church backdrop. Which is just. . . I have no words for the wrongness.

    I am surprised that no one in the production team got the rapey vibe. I think, shot somewhat differently, it would come across as just twincest in a church with a dead child - less rapey, and I guess better?

    It is a really tough scene though. I would like to point out that I do not believe that "continuing to sex someone until the give up" counts as consent - I am very much of the opinion that "No" means "No", and that the "she meant later, not no" excuse is not ok in the real world. But, as you may have gathered, the whole screwing your sister next to your dead child also doesn't sit well with me. And thankfully, Westeros is NOT the real world.

    One word.

    Wow.


  • Options
    #180
    DM addict
    Registered Users Posts: 567 ✭✭✭DM addict


    The Mustard wrote: »
    One word.

    Wow.


    I'm unsure if that's a good wow or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    DM addict wrote: »
    I'm unsure if that's a good wow or not.

    It's all good. That was a really insightful post. I was extremely impressed.


Advertisement