Game of Thrones 4.4 - "Oathkeeper" - Rate and discuss

[Ryan8bit]

That's why the scene is problematic in the book, too. He's forcing himself on her, she's saying no and trying to physically stop him. There's no indication he's going to stop whatever she says or does. She makes a sudden switch to consent. Had that been filmed it could easily be seen as sending a "no means yes, just keep going until you get a yes" message.

I think there's a difference between "no I don't want to have sex here" and "no I don't want to have sex with you at all." If directed well, I don't think it would have been that problematic.

The problem with the scene as it played out on TV was that the circumstances were different. They were more at odds with each other than in the book, so it's hard to say what her feelings were toward him sexually. It appeared as if she didn't want him that way anymore. And the scene cuts off prematurely, so we also don't get to see the aftermath. So the way it is, it's kinda hard to not see it as rape without further elaboration. It was poorly directed if that wasn't the intent.

 

[DarthTom]

^^^
Yes, the view expressed by the director that she was verbally saying no but her body was saying yes is a terrible message.

Agreed. I think we are saying two different things here:

1. Simulated rape on a TV show that has a lot of sex and violence is fine - GoT has worn out the shock value of rape and the one that occurred between Cersi and Jamie failed to have any notable context to the storyline.

2. The real world issues surrounding consent and some men's perceptions of when no means yes sometimes is alarming.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I think there's a difference between "no I don't want to have sex here" and "no I don't want to have sex with you at all." If directed well, I don't think it would have been that problematic.

The problem with the scene as it played out on TV was that the circumstances were different. They were more at odds with each other than in the book, so it's hard to say what her feelings were toward him sexually. It appeared as if she didn't want him that way anymore. And the scene cuts off prematurely, so we also don't get to see the aftermath. So the way it is, it's kinda hard to not see it as rape without further elaboration. It was poorly directed if that wasn't the intent.

Those are good points, although saying no because you don't want to have sex next to your son's corpse in a sept is entirely understandable, and Jaime was forcing the issue. And of course the reason for a no isn't determinative of whether the no should be respected.

They could have come up with something more palatable to the audience, but it was tricky scene to tackle. Some of the interviews about it have certainly made it more of a problem given the disconnect between what is textually on the screen and the intent of at least some involved in the production.

Agreed. I think we are saying two different things here:

1. Simulated rape on a TV show that has a lot of sex and violence is fine - GoT has worn out the shock value of rape and the one that occurred between Cersi and Jamie failed to have any notable context to the storyline.

I think the way the rape in "Oathkeeper" was problematic. You had extras simulating being raped with nudity as throwaway background filler to demonstrate the mutineers are Very Bad People. That should have been handled differently. The scene in the sept actually did have notable context to the story. The theme of the episode was harsh lessons about life, and there was a harsh lesson for the audience that Jaime isn't on a simple path to being a great shining knight. He's still capable of doing terrible things. Even had the scene been shot as rough consensual sex next to their son's corpse it would have had that thematic impact. Since it reads textually as a rape, whatever the behind the scenes intent, it dials that factor way up. Whether that turns out to fit into the narrative or stick out as wrong-headed depends on where Jaime's storyline ends up going.

2. The real world issues surrounding consent and some men's perceptions of when no means yes sometimes is alarming.

Absolutely.

 

[Professor Zoom]

To GoT directors: Bring on the dicks.

They have been rather cowardly and heteronormative with this.

TV Spartacus had so many naked men and women... boobs, dicks... Makes GOT look tame to be honest.

Hell, on Spartacus we SAW a castration...

 

[Starbreaker]

The pacing of this episode was very weird, but I was thrilled with the last scene. I think we spent too much time away from Burn Gorman's group from the last episode.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

[...]

Additionally, to your point up thread about the director not recognizing it as a rape scene is more concerning, because ya know that's real life.

Ironically, sexual assaults on US campuses is being highlighted this week in the media. And there are many males - especially young men - who do not understand that no means no even after someone initially says yes.

It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

 

[Robert Maxwell]

[...]

Additionally, to your point up thread about the director not recognizing it as a rape scene is more concerning, because ya know that's real life.

Ironically, sexual assaults on US campuses is being highlighted this week in the media. And there are many males - especially young men - who do not understand that no means no even after someone initially says yes.

It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

What a disgusting, dishonest, hateful piece. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Additionally, to your point up thread about the director not recognizing it as a rape scene is more concerning, because ya know that's real life.

Ironically, sexual assaults on US campuses is being highlighted this week in the media. And there are many males - especially young men - who do not understand that no means no even after someone initially says yes.

It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

What a disgusting, dishonest, hateful piece. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

So - you cannot argue its accuracy; as such, you resort to dictums, ad personams and group behavior incentives - standard tactics for religious indoctrination, not for rational argument.

As said - It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?

PS - I took the link for the article from Steven Pinker's Twitter page.
I'm looking forward to you trying to exculpate him after your outburst just now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

What a disgusting, dishonest, hateful piece. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

So - you cannot argue its accuracy; as such, you resort to dictums, ad personams and group behavior incentives - standard tactics for religious indoctrination, not for rational argument.

I could easily argue its accuracy, but why bother? You've clearly just come here to stir the pot and I'll simply call it out as such.

As said - It's so easy to indoctrinate people, isn't it?

In your case, apparently so.

PS - I took the link for the article from Steven Pinker's Twitter page.
I'm looking forward to you trying to exculpate him after your outburst just now.

Why would I want to exculpate Pinker?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

What a disgusting, dishonest, hateful piece. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

So - you cannot argue its accuracy; as such, you resort to dictums, ad personams and group behavior incentives - standard tactics for religious indoctrination, not for rational argument.

I could easily argue its accuracy, but why bother? You've clearly just come here to stir the pot and I'll simply call it out as such.

If you could 'easily' argue its accuracy, then prove your words by doing it - 'easily' - as opposed to ineffectively trying to support your point by bragging.

PS - I took the link for the article from Steven Pinker's Twitter page.
I'm looking forward to you trying to exculpate him after your outburst just now.

Why would I want to exculpate Pinker?

So - the dogma before idols, I see.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So - you cannot argue its accuracy; as such, you resort to dictums, ad personams and group behavior incentives - standard tactics for religious indoctrination, not for rational argument.

I could easily argue its accuracy, but why bother? You've clearly just come here to stir the pot and I'll simply call it out as such.

If you could 'easily' argue its accuracy, then prove your words by doing it - 'easily' - as opposed to ineffectively trying to support your point by bragging.

You want me to refute an op-ed that doesn't include any citations? How about you offer some real support for it, since you're the one asserting by proxy that it's true?

PS - I took the link for the article from Steven Pinker's Twitter page.
I'm looking forward to you trying to exculpate him after your outburst just now.

Why would I want to exculpate Pinker?

So - the dogma before idols, I see.

There is no "dogma" here except yours.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I could easily argue its accuracy, but why bother? You've clearly just come here to stir the pot and I'll simply call it out as such.

If you could 'easily' argue its accuracy, then prove your words by doing it - 'easily' - as opposed to ineffectively trying to support your point by bragging.

You want me to refute an op-ed that doesn't include any citations? How about you offer some real support for it, since you're the one asserting by proxy that it's true?

So - no promised 'easily' arguing the article's* accuracy.

In exchange, you're all about 'citations' these days.
I recall you saying something about this being a forum for discussion and you getting tired of hunting for peer-reviewed papers to keep up with me (this was in the 'Science and Technology' subforum, btw).
Ookie-dookie.

*http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Why would I want to exculpate Pinker?

So - the dogma before idols, I see.

There is no "dogma" here except yours.

Of course it isn't. It's just you not being willing to give any arguments to support it.
So - I gather your tactic now is to offer low-information posts one can say little about.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If you could 'easily' argue its accuracy, then prove your words by doing it - 'easily' - as opposed to ineffectively trying to support your point by bragging.

You want me to refute an op-ed that doesn't include any citations? How about you offer some real support for it, since you're the one asserting by proxy that it's true?

So - no promised 'easily' arguing the article's accuracy.

In exchange, you're all about 'citations' these days.
I recall you saying something about this being a forum for discussion and you getting tired of hunting for peer-reviewed papers to keep up with me (this was in the 'Science and Technology' subforum, btw).

Perhaps you should provide an in-context citation for that.

So - the dogma before idols, I see.

There is no "dogma" here except yours.

Of course it isn't. It's just you not being willing to give any arguments to support it.
So - I gather your tactic now is to offer low-information posts one can say little about.

Pretty sure you started that with your first foray into this topic.

 

[dansigal]

I think there's a difference between "no I don't want to have sex here" and "no I don't want to have sex with you at all." If directed well, I don't think it would have been that problematic.

There is NO difference. Both involve someone clearly expressing no to sex and the other forcing it on them. Just because the objection is location rather than person doesn't make it any less rape, and it's dangerous to consider it otherwise.

Why does it matter what the objection is? Time? Place? Person? Isn't an objection an objection?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

You want me to refute an op-ed that doesn't include any citations? How about you offer some real support for it, since you're the one asserting by proxy that it's true?

So - no promised 'easily' arguing the article's accuracy.

In exchange, you're all about 'citations' these days.
I recall you saying something about this being a forum for discussion and you getting tired of hunting for peer-reviewed papers to keep up with me (this was in the 'Science and Technology' subforum, btw).

Perhaps you should provide an in-context citation for that.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9027856&postcount=99

There is no "dogma" here except yours.

Of course it isn't. It's just you not being willing to give any arguments to support it.
So - I gather your tactic now is to offer low-information posts one can say little about.

Pretty sure you started that with your first foray into this topic.

DarthTom and you started the foray into this topic - with no 'citation' whatsoever.
I merely came with a high-information article on this issue from reputable sources - http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html.
Let me guess - you need a citation on this as well, yes?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So - no promised 'easily' arguing the article's accuracy.

In exchange, you're all about 'citations' these days.
I recall you saying something about this being a forum for discussion and you getting tired of hunting for peer-reviewed papers to keep up with me (this was in the 'Science and Technology' subforum, btw).

Perhaps you should provide an in-context citation for that.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=9027856&postcount=99

Ah, I knew it was going to be something batty. This was the discussion in which you tried to prove that climate change will be a net benefit for humanity--a view that was and is a fringe position not backed by data, but perhaps true only to the extent it will benefit northern latitudes and to hell with everyone else. You kept providing more and more links that you claimed proved your point when they didn't, and I got tired of your dishonesty. Your own links touting the benefits even admitted a low level of confidence and plenty of variables they couldn't fully account for. It was basically somewhat informed speculation rather than solid quantitative modeling.

Of course it isn't. It's just you not being willing to give any arguments to support it.
So - I gather your tactic now is to offer low-information posts one can say little about.

Pretty sure you started that with your first foray into this topic.

DarthTom and you started the foray into this topic - with no 'citation' whatsoever.
I merely came with a high-information article on this issue from reputable sources - http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html.
Let me guess - you need a citation on this as well, yes?

That article--if we are willing to call it that--consists of a bunch of anecdotes and a few swipes at Koss' study as if hers is the only one out there. Guess what? Other studies and surveys bear out the 1-in-5 to 1-in-4 statistic. Pretty much any study on sexual assault in the US finds similar numbers. It's gone down slightly over the years to the point that we might put the lower bound at 1-in-6, but that's not exactly helping the author of your article make her case.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I think there's a difference between "no I don't want to have sex here" and "no I don't want to have sex with you at all." If directed well, I don't think it would have been that problematic.

There is NO difference. Both involve someone clearly expressing no to sex and the other forcing it on them. Just because the objection is location rather than person doesn't make it any less rape, and it's dangerous to consider it otherwise.

Why does it matter what the objection is? Time? Place? Person? Isn't an objection an objection?

It does matter because then in the books Cersei was raped by that definition. She protested based on the time/location, but actually did want to have sex. But people here keep insisting that in the books it was not rape because... she liked it? She wanted it? She gave in? And they're very upset by this change in Jaime's character on the show when by your definition he was a rapist in the books as well.

 

[dansigal]

I think there's a difference between "no I don't want to have sex here" and "no I don't want to have sex with you at all." If directed well, I don't think it would have been that problematic.

There is NO difference. Both involve someone clearly expressing no to sex and the other forcing it on them. Just because the objection is location rather than person doesn't make it any less rape, and it's dangerous to consider it otherwise.

Why does it matter what the objection is? Time? Place? Person? Isn't an objection an objection?

It does matter because then in the books Cersei was raped by that definition. She protested based on the time/location, but actually did want to have sex. But people here keep insisting that in the books it was not rape because... she liked it? She wanted it? She gave in? And they're very upset by this change in Jaime's character on the show when by your definition he was a rapist in the books as well.

As long as there's an objection that's ignored and the woman is forced upon, it's rape, END OF STORY. I don't remember what happens in the book exactly. My recollection was that she initially had an objection to the location, but then consented to the act before it occurred. Let's be clear, the important distinction is NOT what the objection is, the important distinction is if and when consent occurs.

 

[dansigal]

For what its worth, this is the description of that particular chapter at Tower of the Hand:

"Jaime goes to the sept to see Cersei, who is praying for Joffrey. Ser Osmund guards the door and does not recognize him at first, but finally lets him through. Cersei is disheveled and amazed to see him. She tells him of Tyrion's threat to turn her joy to ashes2 and says he killed Joffrey. Jaime is starting to believe this, but he recoils at doing what she wants, killing Tyrion in his cell. He forces himself upon her, and they have sex."

 

[BigJake]

Edit_XYZ: To describe Heather Mac Donald as an ignorant wingnut shill would be the generous interpretation of her motives. What should have alerted you that she was suspect was stuff like this:

But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

Those two sentences right there are proof positive that Macdonald is either utterly ignorant of or deceptive about the subject she's sounding off on. Rape only happens if people admit it happened? What? You really can't spot the width of the leap in logic there?

As all of us who have been paying attention and many women who have experienced sexual assault know, stranger rape is less common than acquaintance rape and yes, it's actually very likely that if you are raped by your husband or your boyfriend or a date, you may well have sex with that person in the future. This does not mean that the rape didn't happen. It means that rape happens all the fucking time and that it is very much a part of women's relationships with men. Women often stay with their abusers, too. Does that mean those women are not really being abused? Does it make the abuse her fault? NOPE.

Incidentally, when I saw that you had posted a link to something that was supposedly counter to "indoctrination," I knew immediately that it would be a link to an ignorant right-wing screed. It's a bad sign for your credibility that though I haven't known you that long or interacted with you that much, your behavior was that predictable.

When the claims you post or link to are almost always vapid nonsense or outright hateful nonsense, what happens is that people stop being interested in what you think or say about things and lose interest in discussion with you. That your actions can disgust people into throwing up their hands and walking away is not a victory or a "gotcha" as you seem to imagine it is. So if you care about being seen as credible or worth interacting with, maybe you should do something about developing better-informed views instead of recycling second-hand drivel from movement conservatism's Bizzarro World noise machine? Just a thought.