A Clash of Kings  (A Song of Ice and Fire, #2) A Clash of Kings discussion


2756 views
Is pedophilia in GRRM's books an issue for you?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 224 (224 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5

message 1: by Sindy (last edited Sep 09, 2013 06:20AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sindy I LOVE GRRM's books I can even go as far as to say I am addicted to this series...
I love the theme and the time that they are set in and I UNDERSTAND that things were done differently then.. compared to now.

one comment made stated (which I totally understand by the way):

"These novels are set in a time when a 13 year old was a woman - hence, it cannot be defined as pedophilia. Most of these men are not interested in these young women because they are 13 but rather because they are female and capable of reproduction. The life-span of a female in those times was extraordinarily short by today's standards and therefore it was necessary to be older sooner." BY OLIVER

what I want to know though is... when you read these books does the issue of girls that are 13 years old marring old men get to you? BECAUSE I would like to think that even though we know the circumstances then it still does not "feel" right.


Clyde I don't think GRRM should sugar-coat things in deference to modern sensibilities.
In medieval times, young girls were commonly married off soon after they "bled". Since ASOIAF takes place in a medieval setting, such marriages are appropriate to the story.

In answer to your question, such marriages do "get to me". It especially bothers me that such marriages still occur in some cultures. (Some Islamic and some Mormon sects come to mind.)


Citra It does bother me a little (because it's a fiction). If it's based on true story, I'd definitely put it down.


Gary It does offend the sensibilities, particularly when those marriages are abusive or forced upon the girl. I don't think that means they shouldn't be included, though. It's not a fairy tale, after all.


Line Since the books are set in a medieval time, that just makes sense to me...
If there hadn't been young women married off to older men, that I think would have been weird...

If the story had been set in present day England, it would have been weird to have such relations, but not in the context of his story... (To me, anyway)


Nadine Has anyone seen The Borgias and seen what happened to Lucrezia on her wedding night? Marriages were arranged back in the day, and women were chattel. GRRM is being true to his sort of medieval time.


Sindy Nadine wrote: "Has anyone seen The Borgias and seen what happened to Lucrezia on her wedding night? Marriages were arranged back in the day, and women were chattel. GRRM is being true to his sort of medieval time."

and we all LOVE that about his books.
What I am asking is...do you find yourself on occasion feeling "bothered" by the detailed sexual activities that goes on in the series mostly when its kids (10-17 year old's)INVOLVED IN THEM.


Nadine Well of course. From a 21st century viewpoint the sexualizing of the children and the needless brutality of the soldiers is distasteful to say the least. I'm glad to live now.


Matthew Williams Nadine wrote: "Well of course. From a 21st century viewpoint the sexualizing of the children and the needless brutality of the soldiers is distasteful to say the least. I'm glad to live now."

Well said, Nadine. It raises an interesting point, doesn't it? On the one hand, its a realistic depiction of what medieval life was like. Since 13 year old girls were considered women by the standards of the time, the term "pedophilia" would hardly apply by their standards. But that doesn't deter the creepy factor does it? No young woman, regardless of the time period, is likely to feel comfortable being bedded by a man old enough to be her father - or worse, her grandfather!


message 10: by Paulette (last edited Sep 08, 2013 04:41PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paulette Honestly it doesn't bother me because the books are set in medieval times when marriages were arranged and girls as young as 13/14 were married off. That was norm back then and even with my modern point of view I can't be bothered by something that most of the population engaged in in those times. If you were old enough to menstruate, you were old enough to marry. The only time it really bothers me to read about it is when it's a really young girl having to marry an much much older man. Like Walder Frey and his young wives grosses me out because he's just a despicable human being all around.


message 11: by A.J. (new) - rated it 4 stars

A.J. Sefton And bear in mind that life expectancy was around 30, 18 for peasant men. They had to get as much living in as possible and that included getting married and having children.

Also the British royal family were mostly married off at an even younger age.


message 12: by Olivia (last edited Sep 08, 2013 05:01PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Olivia To be frank, I believe this is an unessessarily inflamatory and redundant question.

These novels are set in a time when a 13 year old was a woman - hence, it cannot be defined as pedophilia. Most of these men are not interested in these young women because they are 13 but rather because they are female and capable of reproduction. The life-span of a female in those times was extraordinarily short by today's standards and therefore it was necessary to be older sooner.

Furthermore, you are putting modern societal norms and ideals on a time where things were very different socially, morally and idealistically.

Today a 13 year old is, can be and should be a little girl. It would be completely unacceptable for a mature man to ne interested in and want to marry a child of that age. I don't think there would be many who would disagree with that.

This did not even cross my mind while reading these books until I read this question. For a book that did make me feel very uncomfortable, see

Lolita


message 13: by A.J. (new) - rated it 4 stars

A.J. Sefton Another point - paedophilia only applies to pre-pubescent children, so marrying thirteen year olds is not a case of paedophilia.


Jonnathan Not at all. Because even though is fantasy Martin tried hard to make it as realistic as possible. In the medieval context that ASOIF is base upon pedophilia didn't exist as we know it this days.


Michelle Zapf-bélanger Sex with teenagers 13 and above is NOT pedophilia, even by today's standards. Pedophilia, according to Wikipedia, is "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children". The 13 year olds discussed have passed puberty.

13 year olds having sex is icky, and by today's standards is wrong, but it is not pedophilia.


message 16: by Killeroinen (last edited Sep 10, 2013 11:51AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Killeroinen Yes. It bothers me. I know its authentic and happened during medieval times, but the fact that it was common doesn't make it any less disturbing.

Now I'm going to make really extreme comparison, so take a deep breath or skip.
If I read a book about a Nazi who worked on concentration camp, which would describe what they did to Jews, I would be horrified, sad and very disturbed by it. It wouldn't be memoir and I would know that at the time Nazis just didn't consider Jews to be real human beings, but I wouldn't still be comfortable reading it.


message 17: by Gary (last edited Sep 10, 2013 01:27PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gary Michelle wrote: "13 year olds having sex is icky, and by today's standards is wrong, but it is not pedophilia."

I went and checked this out because both Michelle and AJ have pointed it out. I confess I thought that you two were off your respective rockers, and I was getting myself all warmed up to argue the point with you. However, it turns out that you're quite correct. There's an effort by medical/psychology oriented people to differentiate between pedophilia, sexual attraction to children, and hebephilia, sexual attraction to 11-14 year olds, and then Ephebophilia, which is sexual attraction to 15-19 year olds.

I had no idea. You learn something new every day... even the occasional creepy thing.

Legally and in common usage, the term pedophilia is used in a more general sense to mean the sexual attraction or actual sexual acts involving anyone under 18, so it has to do with things like the age of consent and statutory rape laws.

I'm not so sure those clinical definitions are really all that helpful for the purposes of reading a book, and that last category seems to cut right across the legal age of consent for most people (depending on the country or state) so I'm not so sure it has much functional use unless we restructure our definition of "adult" somehow. But it is an interesting thing to learn about.


Zoran Krušvar It is written as it should have been written. This is the best way to write it. It is a realistic approach to fantasy and I love GRRM for that.


Zoran Krušvar Plus, "paedophilia" is something that includes children before they develop secondary sexual attributes. Most teens have those developed, so it should not be regarded as paedophilia.


message 20: by Gary (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gary Zoran wrote: "Plus, "paedophilia" is something that includes children before they develop secondary sexual attributes. Most teens have those developed, so it should not be regarded as paedophilia."

Honestly, I'm not that worried about the particulars of the nomenclature for the purposes of this topic. Legally and socially, we don't have four categories. There's either two (child and adult) or we recognize a whole range of categories based on age that often overlap: newborn, infant, toddler, preschooler, kindergartener, pre-teen, teenager, the year a kid is in high school, young adult, etc.

I can see a certain value to having a few categories. After all, we do differentiate between degrees of murder and assault. That last category, Ephebophilia, includes ages at which sex is not currently illegal. Cher can knock over as many 19-year-olds as she likes and nobody puts her behind bars. Maybe society would be better off if they did.... "If I could turn back time" maybe I'd change a few laws.


Michelle Zapf-bélanger Gary said: Legally and in common usage, the term pedophilia is used in a more general sense to mean the sexual attraction or actual sexual acts involving anyone under 18, so it has to do with things like the age of consent and statutory rape laws.

I don't think it is used that way legally. Pedophilia is very specifically attraction to pre-pubescent children.

I don't think it helps to lump them all together in common usage, either--I know some people do, but it isn't right.

There was a teacher at my high school, a fellow in his early thirties, who had an affair with a student (17 years old). He never had sex with her, but they did fall in love and text, etc. This is, for obvious reasons, yucky, and he did need to be fired from his job. But I remember my set of friends calling him a pedophile on Facebook.

No, sorry, he wasn't a pedophile. A 17-year-old girl is biologically an adult. Being attracted to a person who has gone through puberty is evolutionarily normal. If you have working reproductive parts, people want to... reproduce with you. It's how we're made.

We have social conventions about how it's better to partner up to people in your own generation. It's a social convention I follow--I'm a 29-year-old woman married to a 33-year-old man. 17-year-old boys do not seem attractive to me. But it wouldn't be pedophilia to have sex with them, not even legally.

"Teenager" is a thing we've made up, a 6-year grace period where we consider people to be legally children when they are not. It's nice we've done this, because growing up is hard, and for awhile, we're vulnerable. We make mistakes. We are gullible. It's nice to have a little time to learn life lessons before we have to take up responsibilities of our own.

But it wasn't like that always, and definitely not in the middle ages. I'm reading a book about Eleanor of Aquitaine, a young 12th century duchess who, upon her father's death, married the King of France (then 16) and RULED ALL FRANCE. She set up the house, she arbitrated in border disputes, she had children. At that age, she could already speak 3 languages and was educated in affairs of state. It was expected of her and she did it.


message 22: by Will (new) - rated it 4 stars

Will IV I think most of you all missed the real question, which is partly the fault of OP, but she seems to have clarified in message 8. I believe what is bothering her (I might be wrong) is not so much the allusion to medieval morality, but that the actual descriptions of young girls having sex in the book can be quite graphic at times, so in that sense I was bothered.


message 23: by Gary (last edited Sep 10, 2013 03:06PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gary Michelle wrote: "I don't think it is used that way legally. Pedophilia is very specifically attraction to pre-pubescent children."

Legally, the language is all over the place. Legal terms are often defined by the statutes themselves as part of the introduction, and sometimes they are amended later in a way that essentially turns the law around. And in most cases in the U.S. different states have different laws, and a whole different set of possible definitions, so who knows in any particular place? It seems to me the last time I heard someone talking about this kind of thing, the crime was called something like "sexual misconduct with a minor" or some other tepid language like that.

Michelle wrote: "I don't think it helps to lump them all together in common usage, either--I know some people do, but it isn't right."

Do you think we should have different legal standards based on those clinical descriptions? That's an honest question. I'm not sure how that would play out.

Michelle wrote: "17-year-old boys do not seem attractive to me. But it wouldn't be pedophilia to have sex with them, not even legally.

In some places it would be. It seems to me the last time I heard people explaining the current laws in their state, they were saying that it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 16, and two 16 or 17-year-olds could have sex with one another, but if an 18-year-old had sex with someone under 18 (that is, 16 or 17 because 15 is illegal already) then that would be statutory rape.

But, again, things like that change by jurisdiction, so the age at which one can marry without parental permission is 16 in some states and 18 in others.

In this case, though, we're talking about kids at ages that are less ambiguous than 17 going on 18.... The existence of secondary sexual characteristics may have been a standard at one point (in GRRM's work, for example, they make an issue out of the fact the Sansa has "bled" indicating the onset of menses) but for a lot of people that was not considered a standard, even in the middle ages.

Song of Ice & Fire is based loosely on the period of the War of the Roses, and in that struggle we get an example of how this worked around that time. Margaret Beaufort was married off at 12 (IIRC) and had a child almost immediately. However, childbirth probably damaged her body. She never had another child, despite having three (again, IIRC) more husbands. Luckily for her, that son won the game of thrones he was playing and became Henry VII, first of the Tudor dynasty. Nonetheless, her first husband having sex with her at that early age was viewed as brutal.

Anyway, none of this is to say that GRRM shouldn't include such content in his work. It does seem to me that the actresses they've cast in the girls' roles for the TV adaptation appear physically older than the girls are supposed to be in the books. It would be rougher on modern sensibilities to see someone who really was 13 getting beat and mistreated the way Sansa is in the books--even though that kind of thing surely happened, and still happens, though in a different context.


message 24: by Michelle (last edited Sep 10, 2013 04:14PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Michelle Zapf-bélanger It seems to me the last time I heard people explaining the current laws in their state, they were saying that it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 16, and two 16 or 17-year-olds could have sex with one another, but if an 18-year-old had sex with someone under 18 (that is, 16 or 17 because 15 is illegal already) then that would be statutory rape.

Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. As a legal adult, having sex with a 16-year-old may in some places be illegal, and may be rape, but it is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is a different thing.

There are actually very few actual sex scenes in GRRM's books, which is kind of odd when you think about. A lot of beatings and torture, very graphically described, and yes, it is disturbing. I don't think it's supposed to be pleasant.


message 25: by Gary (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gary Michelle wrote: "Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. As a legal adult, having sex with a 16-year-old may in some places be illegal, and may be rape, but it is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is a different thing."

I gotcha. What I'm saying is that in most people's minds the difference between 15 and 13 is negligible, and the difference between 13 and 11 is similarly not a leap. In common usage--despite the clinical definition--pedophilia is anyone that is below the age of consent.

I don't know if we really gain much by differentiating between pedophilia and hebephilia from a legal, cultural or literary POV. I can see the merits of doing that for a psychotherapist. A therapist has to deal with the various aspects of a person's developmental trauma (from victim's POV) and the particulars of the -philiac when it comes to treatment and prevention.

But what is the value of making that a legal or even common usage distinction? Do we want to treat Humbert Humbert different from... I don't know the pedophiliac equivalent character in literature? Do we want to treat those two things differently legally? I'm not so sure that the difference is worth making outside of a treatment program.


message 26: by Will (new) - rated it 4 stars

Will IV Sorry to jump in, but surely there is a distinction that should be made. There is certainly a difference between an 18 yr old having a relationship with a 16/17 yr old, and an 18 yr old having a relationship with an 11 yr old, even if both are considered an adult having an illegal relationship with a minor.


message 27: by Gary (last edited Sep 10, 2013 09:25PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Gary Will wrote: "Sorry to jump in, but surely there is a distinction that should be made. There is certainly a difference between an 18 yr old having a relationship with a 16/17 yr old, and an 18 yr old having a relationship with an 11 yr old, even if both are considered an adult having an illegal relationship with a minor."

I agree with that. I suspect (though, I'm not a lawyer) 17/18 would be some sort of statutory rape or "endangerment" while 11/18 would be an unabiguous child abuse charge.

In fact, I wouldn't really have any problem with 16/18. After all, I wouldn't want any of my old girlfriends to get busted.... The statute of limitation gets funky on such crimes I seem to remember.

What's the cut off, though? I'm not real happy about 15 and 18, though I don't know how that would get split up by the law in anything that didn't pan out like a post-modern Romeo & Juliet....

I'm not a big fan of mandatory sentencing or things like "Zero Tolerance" rules. The problem, however, with discretion in the sentencing and prosecution of such crimes is that it can just as easily get turned on its ear. Like this situation:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/...

Brought to my attention in this thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

That's just a nightmare.


message 28: by Will (new) - rated it 4 stars

Will IV Good points. The line can be ambiguous, and we all know not everyone has the maturity that their age might imply. Like most things, there is a gray area, it's just particularly difficult with age of consent.


message 29: by Presticles1981 (last edited Sep 11, 2013 05:19PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Presticles1981 You mean is an honest depiction of how people acted in similar times in Earths history disturbing? I mean...honestly the sex with 13 yr old girls aspect is unpleasant...but shouldn't you be more concerned with the constant brother and sister sex? Or how about the guy who can control wolves/ravens whatever who talks about going into a wolf while mounting another wolf and such. Shouldn't the beastiality aspect freak you out, and as Keshena said...having sex with a minor isn't the same as pedophilia. Pedophilia is targeting children who HAVEN'T hit puberty, and as the books so commonly point out, none of the marry until they've "Flowered" although I'm sure if girls could have kids at younger ages they would be okay with that and we'd have to reclassify pedophilia altogether.


Nadine Thank you, Presticles1981, for pointing out all the aspects of sexuality that are portrayed in the series. Some of them aren't condoned in the book either. GRRM has developed an long and twisty story with many aspects that couldn't/wouldn't happen in the first world today.

I do have to say that he isn't portraying sexual abuse so much as the general misogyny towards women and girls. Remember the oh so fun scene where Brienne was thrown into the bear pit because they thought her a freak. Remember also that Arya had to cut her hair and pretend she was a boy to survive. Remember Cersei, Cat Stark, and her sister Lady Aryn (whose name I forget) were all forced into marriages with strangers.

And noblewomen had it "good." If a woman wasn't noble, she was fair game to any man unless she had a protector. Sometimes that protector was killed. Sometimes King Robert chose you and you didn't say no.

So I think the point of whether sex with underage girls is wrong or right or icky isn't the point. It was the poor treatment of women in general at the time that is being depicted.


message 31: by Presticles1981 (last edited Sep 12, 2013 09:53AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Presticles1981 "I do have to say that he isn't portraying sexual abuse so much as the general misogyny towards women and girls."

Ehhh, I don't even think he's attempting to portray Misogyny. I mean clearly there are some things that happen to women that would be considered misgynistic by today's standards, but I don't think it's simply a hatred for women that is driving these people to act that way. So I think to call it misogyny is a bit over the top. It is however an extremely violent and brutal world and women are at a disadvantage because "the sword" is what ruled at that point and time. My point here is it's not about them being women which is what misogyny has to do with and more about them simply being physically weaker. Women aren't the only people being brutalized in the book due to a physical overpowering. If for instance Arya had killed Joffrey when she disarmed him with the butcher's boy, would that have been misandry?


Paulette I mean...honestly the sex with 13 yr old girls aspect is unpleasant...but shouldn't you be more concerned with the constant brother and sister sex?"

Not only am I not bothered by 13 year old girls getting married in ASOIF, I'm not even bothered that brother & sister, Jaime and Cersei (and the Targaryans) are in a romantic relationship with each other. They are both two consenting adults and if they want to fall in love and get married to each other, they should be free to do that. From the story it seems to me that they truly love and care for one another, which I think is great regardless of the fact that they're siblings. Although truth be told, I'm not sure Cersei can really love anyone except herself.


Patrick AJ wrote: "And bear in mind that life expectancy was around 30, 18 for peasant men. They had to get as much living in as possible and that included getting married and having children.

Also the British roya..."


Those life expectancies are extremely off. If you lived past your childhood, you could be expected to live into your 50s or 60s. That's true for both peasants and nobility.


message 34: by Presticles1981 (last edited Sep 17, 2013 04:48PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Presticles1981 Paulette wrote: " I mean...honestly the sex with 13 yr old girls aspect is unpleasant...but shouldn't you be more concerned with the constant brother and sister sex?"

Not only am I not bothered by 13 year old girl..."


It's all fiction so I'm not bothered by any of it. My point was if the OP was bothered by sex with 13 yr old's shouldn't they be complaining about the other types of sex that are typically regarded as even MORE disgusting.

I'm not sure if your post was intended to incite...or was just illustrating that you don't care about a work of fiction. I can only hope for one of those two as I don't think there is much I can say to someone who has no problem having sex with their siblings.


Presticles1981 Paulette wrote: "From the story it seems to me that they truly love and care for one another, which I think is great regardless of the fact that they're siblings."

You have a very interesting view of "truly loving each other".


message 36: by Melissa (last edited Sep 18, 2013 08:24AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Melissa Herston I honestly never saw any indicator that the time line in ASOIAF is the same as ours. I guess for me I never presumed that a name day would come every 365 days like it does for us. Especially seeing as the seasons on this imaginary place do not act the same as ours and they are under a different moon.
I know some will argue that Sansa got her period when she was thirteen name years old and that is a common age for girls in our timeline. Okay. Agreed. But women on in this timeline and under this moon can start theirs as late as 18 or even later. Is it not possible that in ASOIAF people take longer then us to age? Each name day being 450 or so days apart bringing these girls and boys to a more respectable age range when compared to our time line?
Could this also explain why Catelyn Stark who died at only 35 years old had children who were almost grown?
This estimate would put Sansa at 16 when she started her period and Catelyn at 43 when she dies by our timeline.
And yes I realise this would put Walder frey at about 114 years old but people have lived to 122 years.


message 37: by Paulette (last edited Sep 18, 2013 09:12AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paulette Melissa wrote: "I honestly never saw any indicator that the time line in ASOIAF is the same as ours. I guess for me I never presumed that a name day would come every 365 days like it does for us. Especially seeing..."

There's no indication that I've seen that the years are anything but 365 days. Also, I dont know what you mean by Catelyn had children who were almost grown at 35. When GoT starts Robb is only 14. My best friend is 33 and her daughter is 15 so it's entirely possible for Cat to be 35 with a 14 year old if we're using calendars that are 365 days long. Where are you getting 450 days from? Also, the only reason we have seasons on Earth is bc of the tilt of its axis so our seasons don't need to apply to the world of ASOIAF.


Melissa Herston 450 is at best a rough estimate to show an example. I would personally prefer my theory over the sexualisation of small children.
Also if their calendar is based on going around a sun like ours, what is the likely hood it would take exactly the same amount of time as our planet takes?


message 39: by Presticles1981 (last edited Sep 18, 2013 09:17AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Presticles1981 Melissa wrote: "450 is at best a rough estimate to show an example. I would personally prefer my theory over the sexualisation of small children.
Also if their calendar is based on going around a sun like ours, w..."


What do you mean the sexualization of small children? He's not doing something purposeful beyond our own biology that sexualizes humans, period. Do you mean to say that you don't want to be made aware that puberty causes children to become sexually aware? I would argue that kids in America today are sexualized prior to puberty so really he's desexualizing children as he's illustrating the sort of awkwardness felt by not only the children involved but also the people who plan to marry them...as is the case between characters in ASOIAF. What is so interesting about this is that it's a very minor aside in these books. There's a lot more going on then sex with 13 yr olds. That happened regardless of whether it's history was similar to ours or not. It's civilization is definitely similar to aspects of ours. I hope that's not being misunderstood. You realize we had a time in our history where Guilt was proved by combat, and children who were able to reproduce were wed in organized and planned marriages right? In that sense it's a parallel of Earth's history. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. I mean we didn't have Dragons...I agree...it's still a work of fiction but certainly he's drawing how they act from our history.

Further if you wish to get technical and show certain unsavory characters are proof of sexualization I'd say "do you like those people or relate to them in anyway?" the point is that even if there are characters that sexualize children like Walder Frey or Crastor, they aren't GOOD people...they're not meant to be related to, they're created to make a contrast between good characters (One small character for instance don't want to spoil anything for anyone as this is on Clash of Kings and not Storm of Swords). There are characters that are forced into marriage with young children and it's not a pleasant experience for either of them. This contrast illustrates the moral dilemmas going on in the inner-workings of characters we are meant to relate to. The character sexualizing a child doesn't mean the reader is supposed to accept children being sexualized. It's very clear to me that none of the good characters are fond of it.


Paulette Melissa wrote: "450 is at best a rough estimate to show an example. I would personally prefer my theory over the sexualisation of small children.
Also if their calendar is based on going around a sun like ours, w..."


I hardly consider a 14 year old a small child, and again, in those times it was perfectly normal for a female of that age to get married since by 14 most women have already started to menstruate.


Melissa Herston I suppose I should not take into account the ageing up of the actors in the HBO series as we are discussing only the book as opposed to the whole ASOIAF universe. Point conceded.


message 42: by Cass (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cass Must add to the comments above, while many think it is realistic and understandable so is the rape and pillaging. It becomes creepy when so many of us are saying that they are not offended. Yes, I am disgusted! And it is still a travesty continuing today. Let us be disturbed. This issue needs more notice, because here are little girls right now that need rescuing.


Paulette Cass wrote: "Must add to the comments above, while many think it is realistic and understandable so is the rape and pillaging. It becomes creepy when so many of us are saying that they are not offended. Yes, I ..."

I havent seen anyone say they are not offended by the rapings that happen but no, I am not offended at all that 14 year old girls getting married. Again, this was normal during the middle ages and GRRM uses some events of the time as inspiration for his books so if you're offended by young teenagers getting married and arranged marriages then you are probably offended by the entire period of the Middle Ages and every period since the dawn of time.


Ceasar it only adds to the authenticity of the series, it's a period-piece in it's own right. Not to say that pedophilia isn't wrong, it's disgusting, but all the small little wrong things...not to mention the incest, so much of that...that make it feel real and raw


Sindy Cass wrote: "Must add to the comments above, while many think it is realistic and understandable so is the rape and pillaging. It becomes creepy when so many of us are saying that they are not offended. Yes, I ..."

Thank you Cass... you caught the real issue that I was trying to point out out with this thread.
That, YES this might have been the way things were done then and YES we love GRRM for staying true to the time.....HOWEVER considering the day and age we live in where grown men abduct children and rape them.
Is it then not proper to say that it should bother us to read and hear about how young girls were treated in those times because many perpetrators use the same excuse ,that they used in those times. "oh she's had her period so she's a woman now."
no offence... but that's crap!
where as some cant even wait till then.


message 46: by Presticles1981 (last edited Sep 20, 2013 06:27AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Presticles1981 Sindy wrote: "HOWEVER considering the day and age we live in where grown men abduct children and rape them"

Well you should have said that to begin with. I find no relation between political marriages in history and abducting and raping children. I'm sorry that this comes to mind when you read them. I however am not reminded of instances where children are abducted and raped. I don't know how it would be creepy that I'm NOT preoccupied with stories of child abduction and rape.

No one here, not one single person, was advocating that grown men should be having sex with 13 yr old girls, or defending men who do! LOL So this whole "Oh she's had her period so she's a woman now" isn't even a relevant statement because no one said that it's okay. We did say however that it's not pedophilia. (Cause it isn't). We also said that it doesn't bother us that he depicts the times. Would I be bothered if say The President married a 13 yr old girl? Uh...yah...as everyone would be. So what are you getting at? If we don't reminisce about child rape and abduction when it comes to politically arranged marriages in history it's creepy and weird? WTF is wrong with you people?


Sindy ...I agree that I should have done my research before calling it pedophilia.
BUT...the fact that it doesn't bother most people, that should freak you out PRESTICLES1981 BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE THAT DID ADVOCATE THIS BEHAVIOR .
Take the scene with Sansa and Tyrion as an example...didnt that just feel wrong.( forget that she already hated him and that...should it have been Lancel instead of Tyrion we all might have had a different reaction)


Presticles1981 You should look at my post sometime ago about how the people who "Like it" are villains, Walder Frey, Crastor. Tyrion didn't "Like" the idea. He felt very awkward and weird about it. It was all very well categorized there was a moral dilemma there.


Presticles1981 and I don't get what you're saying about "Advocating" it. you mean people on this thread or GRRM? I don't think either is correct.


message 50: by Paulette (last edited Sep 23, 2013 06:10AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Paulette "Sindy wrote: "Take the scene with Sansa and Tyrion as an example...didnt that just feel wrong."

Are you talking about their wedding day/night? Actually no, it didnt feel wrong to me and I didn't feel bad for her at all. Well, I felt bad that they surprised her with the wedding bc they could have told her in advance but that was it for feeling bad for her. Instead I sympathized with Tyrion. Even during the wedding I thought it was very rude of her that she couldn't even kneel so he could put the Lannister cloak around her shoulders bc yet again, she's only thinking of herself. Sansa always had a dreamy idea of getting married to a valiant knight or a prince, instead she gets the Imp. Even after the wedding night, I was hopeful that she would at some point realize that Tyrion really was on her side, was trying to make the best of the situation and might at some point do her duties as a wife, but she never warmed up to him and was pretty cold in her interactions with him. My heart went out to Tyrion.


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top