Martin, Sexuality and Age (Formerly, 'Is George...?')

[Eulalia]

I applaud the discussion! I was thinking a new thread was in order, because of the "inauspicious" start, but hey.

I'd be willing to bet that most writers, I don't know about GRRM, would be very keen on having issues that they raise in their writing, used to promote awareness and lively debate.

Another consideration in the "middle ages" could be that once you were married (or even betrothed?) I'm not sure that there was any such thing as rape. I doubt Dany would have thought of it that way. Does anyone recall? And, by the way, it doesn't usually stick in modern times either, does it? One can still be divorced for not having sex. Then, women were also meant to be kept in line by their lord husband, and beatings were not out, although murder and serious injury were. Later on didn't they have pillories and scold's bridles for such egregious transgressions as nagging? And for "witchcraft", well, you could be burned at the stake.

I suppose that is an improvement on Roman times where the head of the household could legally kill any children, women in his family or slaves, at his own discretion.

I'm rather glad things have changed!

 

[Tansy]

I think it's hard today to imagine what it must have been like to be a female in those times, women didn't have any rights, they were more or less property. First of their fathers and then later of their husbands. Rape was probably something some guy did to some other guy's wife as until a woman was married it probably didn't count and only then by someone other than her husband, or maybe the woman was cast aside or killed for being unfaithful regardless of if she was a willing participant or not.

I'm rather glad things have changed to.

 

[Susan Boulton]

Folk seem to have a very black or white picture of women during the middle ages. I would suggest folk take a look at Medieval Women by Elieen Power, and as regards "sex", Desire and Discipline, edited by Jacqueline Murray and Konrad Eisenbichler.

I think folk will find it is more of a muddy grey, just as it is now. A mix of culture, religion, and law mixed with a huge dash of confusion, which could be different, depending on where and when you were in the span of 500 plus years that is called the "middle ages."

Also to say a work of fiction, even when based on a time period is typical of a set time period, is a bit silly. (I don't mean that in a rude sense) A writer puts in a book what he or she believes will drive the story forward, and illuminate his/her characters for the reader. You might like it or not, but in the end it is only fiction, you have the choice to continue reading or put the book down. No one is going you to force you to read it if you don't want too.

Personally I would save my angst for women who are still, today, living with the fear of physical and mental ill-treatment.

 

[TK-421]

Personally I would save my angst for women who are still, today, living with the fear of physical and mental ill-treatment.

That is well said.

 

[Koopa]

Did not highborn roman woman had certain rights? They managed the household, and such i remember from my history lessons. Also if Rome is to be believed the roman highborn woman did have certain sexual freedom. With the excesses, and cheese fondue parties and all.

 

[Eulalia]

One of the best things about GRRM, at least to me, is the strength and breadth of the female characters. Forgive me, but Tolkien, the master, had some great ones and was ahead of many writers of the time, but how does a real woman relate to Arwen, Galadriel, or even Eowyn, cool and mythologically magnificent as they are? I remember growing up always feeling kind of disappointed by that.

Do men have the same issues with high fantasy?? Just asking.

GRRM's women are so varied, with some smaller problems, and as far as we know do not solve it by giving up their immortality, or sailing off into the West...

Sansa struggles with disillusionment vs idealism. (Doesn't everyone or is it just me) She couldn't see Tyrion's beauty or Joffrey's monstosity at first. She has been so passive. What now for her? She is in Little Finger's hands...

Cersei, is highly sexual, was married to a pig where divorce was not an option, and is frustrated by her limitations from gender, not that her solutions were so great.

Arya defies her role, and is completely cut off from family. She is angry, aggressive, but is highly resourceful and tough. What will her fate be?

Dany is compassionate, sexual and intelligent but has been fated to develop into a leader.

Maybe you all have favourites. The biggest thing missing from GRRM's world in regard to the Middle Ages has got to be the Catholic church.

BTW, Kiwi, Roman matrons in the Republic were supposed to be demure and mainly interested in running the household. Spinning was supposed to be an approved past time. They were not supposed to be involved in politics and could not vote or sign contracts. They took their name from their father, so if their father's name was Julius, the first girl's name was Julia major, the second girl was Julia minor, the third was Julia Tertia, etc. Marriages were arranged and as in the Middle Ages they were formed for political or monetary gain in the nobility. If they divorced (and the husband could divorce them at will), they forfeited any rights to their children. Later on sexual freedom became more common, but some of the TV type sexuality was not common and some of it is made up to make it more dramatic ( like Atia in the steamy Rome series), though there were a few of course!

Why is it relevant now? Well a lot of Western law and even the constitutions of many countries are based on the Roman ideas. And, hey, GRRM recommended the Rome series!

 

[Koopa]

Well yeah, atia was supposed to be very faithful or devote or so in real life, if what i was told can be believed. Also what u said is true, however while the tv show Rome exagerate, it was still there, woman did have indirectly an amount of power.

 

[Shacklock]

Back onto the topic, just to be clear, are people adverse to sex at the age of 13 to 16 or is it the aformentioned ages having sex with much older men/women? OR is it rape in general? It's a complex topic with many confusing factors such as love, exact ages, circumstance etc. etc.
Personally I'm one of those liberal people, if your "In love" or really want to have sex with an older person and they feel the same way and arent some creepy pedo, go for it. But saying that i've never been one for law, which may influence my opinion. Obviously I'm still against rape, but with the Drogo and Dany situation, it happens, it's a book which is supposed to be gritty and acuruatly portray life in a Middle Age-esque setting. I can say I'd ever judge a writter on what he writes, in terms of context, it's not his opinion.

Hope I dident ramble on and go off the point I have a habbit of doing that xD

 

[Pyan]

are people adverse to sex at the age of 13 to 16 or is it the aforementioned ages having sex with much older men/women?

This seems to me to be a purely cultural thing, and varies throughout the world anyway. There are some cultures where a girl becomes a woman and able to be married or have sex as soon as they have their first menses: there are some where a girl can be married or betrothed while they are only six or seven years old, and there are those where any sex is forbidden by custom until they are at least eighteen.

Having sex with, and becoming attached to by marriage to an older man is not regarded in many cultures as wrong - on the contrary, an older man is much more likely to be able to provide security, safety and a better quality of life that a man of the same age. The romantic ideal of marrying for love with a man your own age is, comparatively, a more recent invention, and takes little notice of the harsh realities of life in a real (or mock, for that matter) mediæval setting

Applying your own set of mores to any other culture is, at best, impolite in real life: when you start to do so to a fictional culture, it just becomes pointless, unless that culture is based strictly on the same set of mores as your own.

I use the words you, your, in a general way here, and not individually picking out any contributor to this thread.

 

[Tansy]

I read to broaden my mind and the extend the scope of my experiences, not to become closed to the ideas presented in a story. If you are really offended by a book then simply stop reading it.

I'd also like to add that the (western) world at the moment it a "relatively" safe place and life expectancy is fairly high. It is also overcrowded so people are encouraged to "Family plan" and wait till they are older to have kids etc. If something happened to change that, fertility problems, famine, war, disease and the population was in decline I am sure out morality and culture would change to a more flexible approach towards sex/relationships.

As in some places in our world today, in Martin's world life is not certain, you could die at any time and I am sure average life expectancy is not that high. Children don't have the luxury of staying children for long, they have to grow up fast and face the harsh realities of life. I think living in a place like that would change your priorities in life somewhat?

I echo what Pyan said above much more eloquently than myself.. its fantasy, albeit realistic fantasy.. its not real

This thread reminds of the people at work who talk about "corrie" or "stenders! as if it is real and they know the characters involved personally.

 

[Shacklock]

I read to broaden my mind and the extend the scope of my experiences, not to become closed to the ideas presented in a story. If you are really offended by a book then simply stop reading it.

I'd also like to add that the (western) world at the moment it a "relatively" safe place and life expectancy is fairly high. It is also overcrowded so people are encouraged to "Family plan" and wait till they are older to have kids etc. If something happened to change that, fertility problems, famine, war, disease and the population was in decline I am sure out morality and culture would change to a more flexible approach towards sex/relationships.

As in some places in our world today, in Martin's world life is not certain, you could die at any time and I am sure average life expectancy is not that high. Children don't have the luxury of staying children for long, they have to grow up fast and face the harsh realities of life. I think living in a place like that would change your priorities in life somewhat?

I echo what Pyan said above much more eloquently than myself.. its fantasy, albeit realistic fantasy.. its not real

This thread reminds of the people at work who talk about "corrie" or "stenders! as if it is real and they know the characters involved personally.

On that note! I've met and ran into several of the actors of Cora' over the years, a few live in my area But your point is completly valid.
And as I cant seem to edit what I write can I point out in my previous post I MEANT to say "I can't say I'd ever judge a writter..."

 

[Boaz]

After a co-worker mentioned a porn parody of the HBO show, I sought out comments by GRRM regarding A Game of Bones. His remarks about the porn flick are between the 2 and 3 minute mark of this youtube video of an Australian interview.

I don't know if the video is safe for your work. There's no nudity, but the words MILF and b--- j-- are used.

The bottom line? GRRM's own words...

"So, I just found it ironic that my books have something in them that's evidently too dirty for porn."

 

[Michael Colton]

Re: is George a Pedo?

I don't know whether Connavar is one of them, or if he was like me: I kept putting down the first book and thinking, "That's enough," but I heard so many good things about the series that I kept going back just to see if I was missing something. By the time I reached the end of A Game of Thrones I figured that it was time to stop looking for something that obviously wasn't there for me.

This sums up my experience with the book. It was an absolute struggle to get through and it is one of the few books I have ever deeply regretted spending the time to finish.

I also agree with your statement about how people imagine the Middle Ages rather than what they were actually like. Young betrothals were largely functions of family politics and practicality and were often not consummated or remotely marriage-like for many years afterwards. It was to lay claim to a person and their family status, reputation, and ability before someone else could. In my opinion, using this sort of thing (especially with the details and incessantness he did) was nothing more than attempting to seem dark, edgy, and gritty (which seemed to be the entire point of the book in and of itself, to me). But anyway, that was only one of my many frustrations with the book. Obviously others enjoyed it, so to each their own I suppose.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

First, the entire scene lasts just over one page in the book. That's it. Starting at the bottom of page 107 of the U.S. paperback and ending on page 108. The entire scene is very gentle. Drogo is extremely gentle, takes his time, and even repeatedly asks Dany if she's ready yet during the foreplay. How is that a rape? It's not until Dany says she's she wants to that they proceed to have sex.

This. I remember it that way to. I even remember that his last word in the chapter is "Yes." He says "No?" and she says "Yes." The scene ends with him fingering her. There is no rape to speak off. It was consensual. At most, one could go for statutory rape, but here is the thing.

Martin established his universe. In his universe, the moment Dany flowered, she was no longer a child but a woman. In modern age, we set the age for sex at 18 as that is when we are considered legal adults. In Martin's books, a girl becomes a woman and therefore an adult the moment she flowers. As simple as that.

As for Middle Ages in Europe, girls of higher social status would marry early and would have children as soon as possible because family needed an heir. Meaning, after they got their first few menstrual cycles (probably in order to give the cycle time to become regular). Now, a girl can get a cycle at any point between 10 and 16. So, say she got her first period at 13 on average. It takes about a year or two for the cycle to become regular. So, she will get married at 14-15 and at earliest would have a child at 14-15. The reason there are so few children birthed at that age that were noted was the fact that such pregnancies are risky. Miscarriage is very often and stillborn babies as well. Teen pregnancies are considered risky even today. First pregnancy even more so. And a teenage pregnancy during Middle Ages just screams problems. Don't get me started on infant death rates. On average, a Middle Ages woman had one stillborn or a child who died within first year of life. Every other such child was the first child.

Furthermore, a marriage wasn't considered valid until consummation happened. No bloody fool would risk that. At the very least, they had sex on the wedding night. As for what happened later, no one can really say for sure as sources and cases differ. As for families who choose to hold on to their daughters after marriage, it was usually so if they didn't expect the marriage to last because they made it for short-term political gain so they could easily annul it on grounds of non-consummation. And sometimes, the marriages were agreed upon, but were then delayed on purpose in hopes of a better match or for other political reasons.

Girls of lower birth married later because the families needed all the hands they could get to work the fields and marrying off a girl meant two capable hands less.

And because I'm going for an overkill, historic examples.

Bianca of Savoy was married aged 14 (1350), and aged 15 when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).

Theodora Comnena was aged 13 when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).

Agnes of France was 12 when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182). [And mind you, concerning her first marriage, William of Tyre, who was present at the ceremony, seems to describe it as a full wedding (matrimonii legibus ... copulare); in this he is followed by some other non-Byzantine sources]

St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12 when she was married to King Denis of Portugal.

Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9-10 and immediately married, consummated the marriage at 14 and had a daughter at 15. (I love you Assassin's Creed. <3 [For nitpickers, I did check this from more credible sources so save your breaths.])

Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13 and according to some sources bore a son. (I love you Assassin's Creed. <3 [For nitpickers, I did check this from more credible sources so save your breaths.])

Beatrice d'Este was betrothed aged 5 and married aged 15 (it was postponed more than once prior to that due to political reasons).

Furthermore, the acknowledged official age of consent at that time was 12-14.

And another overkill, as was already mentioned, Dany is not in the setting that supports a parallel with European Middle Ages so all this is quite irrelevant, but I just love piling stuff up.

 

[Michael Colton]

Nobody is questioning how Martin set up his universe. It is his - he can set it up how he wishes. But what we do question is why he set it up that way. In my opinion, and apparently in others' as well, he did so purely for shock factor. Besides the scene we are all talking about, the emphasis on rape elsewhere in the book just felt like a really half-assed way of trying to feel gritty and dark. It is something that instantly gets a reaction from people - more than any other topic. And he knows that. Add in other elements such as incest and Dany's brother's manner of lashing out at her, it just reinforces the feeling that the author was using anything he could for cheap shock factor.

I disliked the book besides all of this, so it's not as if I feel I lost something because he relied on it. As I have said before, the series is pretty successful so obviously there are many that disagree with me. And that is fine - to each their own.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Nobody is questioning how Martin set up his universe. It is his - he can set it up how he wishes. But what we do question is why he set it up that way. In my opinion, and apparently in others' as well, he did so purely for shock factor. Besides the scene we are all talking about, the emphasis on rape elsewhere in the book just felt like a really half-assed way of trying to feel gritty and dark. It is something that instantly gets a reaction from people - more than any other topic. And he knows that. Add in other elements such as incest and Dany's brother's manner of lashing out at her, it just reinforces the feeling that the author was using anything he could for cheap shock factor.

I disliked the book besides all of this, so it's not as if I feel I lost something because he relied on it. As I have said before, the series is pretty successful so obviously there are many that disagree with me. And that is fine - to each their own.

I'm heading towards explaining why it is so. Because it is much more realistic. Why should he shy away from describing what happens? I don't think it to be cheap shock factor as stuff like that happened. Targaryen incestuous practice is a call out towards old Egyptian Dynasties who did the same. And Viserys is a mad and bitter person who blames Dany for the death of his mother. Parallel can be drawn between Cersei and Viserys as to how they treat Tyrion and Dany respectively. Incest between Jaime and Cersei is simply parts misdirected attraction, part narcissism, and part Cersei and to an extent Jaime's want to emulate the Targaryens. Heck, if anything, I'd compare them to Borgia Family and rumours surrounding them.

I really don't get the issue. It doesn't feel cheap to me. It feels realistic because the entire portrayal is trying to be very realistic. Heck, the women I had listed were married as an exception and you don't see every young girl in ASOIAF getting married at that age. Furthermore, it is the same thing Martin once mentioned though I'm paraphrasing. Describe how an axe enters a man's skull in vivid detail, no one bats an eyelash. Do the same with a penis entering a vagina, you'd think you murder sweet innocent babies for fun.

He was inspired by various historical occurrences including Middle Ages. He even says so. Why should he shy away from what was a common practice then?

 

[Michael Colton]

It is just a question of how it is portrayed and what else surrounds it. From my perspective, it felt like those elements became focal points - not elements for realism. They either seemed very out of place (and thus feeling like something thrown in for shock factor) or they seemed like meaningless things to focus on that had little to do with setting or narrative (also feels like shock factor). The Dothraki came across as barbarians on horseback who rape. There was nothing else to them. Dany came across as an abused girl that learned to love the barbarians she was sold to - nothing more. I just felt like there was very little depth, meaning, or interesting narrative to hold the pieces together - it just felt like grit upon grit for no reason, periodically punctuated by shock factor. People have told me that it gets better after the first book, but I already regret giving him however many hundreds of pages I did since these were not the only things about the book that I disliked.

I know this is like a broken record, but I do want to repeat the 'to each their own' trope. If others enjoyed it, by all means continue to do so and more power to you.

Edit: I do also want to point out that nowhere did I say certain elements should not be put into fiction. I merely criticized the way in which he did it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

GRRM certainly does use a historical setting to establish his world - but he also applies a lot of extremes.

He's also used North American inflections - I seem to recall potatoes and wolverines mentioned in the text.

And as above, incest was something more accepted in the near east than Europe.

Ultimately, whatever mediaeval sources GRRM has used, he has defined his world in his own terms, and exaggerated elements to create a larger than life story.

In that regard, I hardly see admirers or critics as being at odds on the issue, merely coming to it from different directions.

 

[Michael Colton]

GRRM certainly does use a historical setting to establish his world - but he also applies a lot of extremes.

He's also used North American inflections - I seem to recall potatoes and wolverines mentioned in the text.

And as above, incest was something more accepted in the near east than Europe.

Ultimately, whatever mediaeval sources GRRM has used, he has defined his world in his own terms, and exaggerated elements to create a larger than life story.

In that regard, I hardly see admirers or critics as being at odds on the issue, merely coming to it from different directions.

I would agree. Much of my criticism can be boiled down to disliking his writing style. It felt to me like regular extremes without much in between to keep me interested. If others found something in between to interest them or enjoyed his style of extremes, I can understand that.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Targaryen incestuous practice is a call out towards old Egyptian Dynasties who did the same.

But it's not these sort of things that feel particularly shocking. I can accept the argument for them. I struggle to accept the same argument for Bolton using Reek to prep his woman for him. That, to me, was gratuitous. Martin had already est. the relationship between the two men and the girl who marrried him, there was absolutely no need for that scene. Ditto Tyrion's wife - that was done, as far as I could tell, for effect. It certainly added nothing to my understanding of the characters or the world.

I really don't get the issue.

The issue, for me, is the women are the ones with their t*ts hanging out and getting gangbanged. Even Reek's castration, so hammed up in the series, is barely intimated at in the books. I can't help thinking that it's not a coincidence that a sexual mutilation committed on a man is barely shown, yet the ones on women are covered in all their gory details. I find it not only distasteful but an atrocious example of a book for young women, that imbeds all the casual statements of sexism that surround us. If he had the courage to actually show what happened to Reek, to explain how this damaged him and to make a male victim of a sexual reduction actually be (overtly, not half-hidden) affected by it, I'd feel very differently.

Do the same with a penis entering a vagina, you'd think you murder sweet innocent babies for fun.

I have no problem with him showing a penis entering a vagina - many books do it, and in vivid detail. I have a problem with him showing women being sexually degraded and not men, who throughout history in wars have faced the same. I'm not the only one who does.

He was inspired by various historical occurrences including Middle Ages. He even says so. Why should he shy away from what was a common practice then?

Then why not show male rape?