# Game of Thrones and its psychological fuck uppery



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean some people may enjoy such characters on screen. Just because a character is two-dimensional it doesn't mean they are automatically less entertaining or dislikable when compared to a three-dimensional character.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks good. Ill reply to this later. Better catch some zz.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Soap opera in Renaissance fair clothing.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

IamIcarus said:


> But is the show exploring what immorality does to people? Fair enough a point that the show does explore the effects somewhat, minorly but still, it takes competence to see that Cersei is often in a state of disarray and attribute that to her crimes while Tyrion leads a RELATIVELY moral life, and is quite well balanced as an individual.


Yes, it does. And I'm not just thinking of Cersei--Robb Stark, while not doing anything immoral, rejects proper policymaking and duty in favor of love (in the film, anyway--it's _very_ different in the books, but...), and he pays for it. Jon Snow must choose between the desire to avenge his father and his duty to the Night's Watch. Stannis, as a sort of counterexample, chooses duty to the extent that others die and war continues--for it. Daenerys must cling to her morals while dealing with the realities of war and politics. 

The depth of the series is literally _everywhere_, but it's there subtly. You have to look for it to appreciate the true beauty. 



> If you look at the books which involve this topic the depraved individual loses his soul and there is an allusion to the sins he has committed but it is never so EXPLICIT. In GOT it is unrestrained, it is practically porn,


And maybe the GOT way is actually more effective--the allusions to the sins aren't as visceral as the sins themselves. Maybe Martin's just exploring it a new way. 




> it is not just sexualisation it is also objectification because if people are taking "whores" constantly, whores are killed at a whim and women are raped with no remorse or restrain they are practically toys - when scenes of immense savagery and cruelty are shown it is just appealing to the viewers darker sides.


They may have cut this out in the show, so I don't know, but in the books the whores aren't _just_ whores. One of them, Alayaya, is actually a close friend of Tyrion's that he never even considers sex with. They just have nice conversations before Cersei gets to her. Then there's the Maegi, that's not really a whore, I might add, but treated similarly, and whose rape is actually explored in depth as one of the reasons she killed Daenerys' child. She actually discusses how yes, Daenerys saved her life, but she and her soldiers took everything else away from her, even her inner stability with the rape. 

I mean, these deeper facets are there, and they're discussed in far too much detail to just be unintentional window-dressing. 



> You can show how the id can effect us spiritually with just allusion to the sins *not the actual demonstration of the extremes of sin*. That is a crime the makers of the show and George R.R Martin have to answer for.


But still, the actual extremes appear more horrific. 




> Refer to previous.
> 
> yup


...yeah, Daenerys isn't objectified. I'll grant you _some_ of the whores, but not her. Her hand in marriage is oftentimes a bargaining chip, but that fact is conveyed to us from _her_ perspective, and she promptly _stops_ being a mere bargaining chip after she's married to Drogo. As for her nudity, that's not a purely titillating thing, I think, given that she's naked, _coming out of a fire_, _with dragons_. That's an outright power fantasy, in my opinion. 




> Sure they sucked. But damn, Game of Thrones is soley focusing on the incredibly screwed up bits of it. Im not saying that your point is not valid, im simply stating that the show is most definitely not caring overly about it. If anything i would say that the fact it does incorporate your point minorly is unintentional.


As I've mentioned, it's not just minor. And the fact that it's using that as the sole focus is very much in contrast to many portrayals of the era, which makes it more interesting, not less.


----------



## izebize (Jan 31, 2012)

Interesting. One of my main reasons for watching GOT is because it doesn't want to moralize, and especially not in the childish fairytale-way like other shows do, where bad guys are always punished and the good ones are always saved. That's just not how life works. Sometimes the good guys just act dumb, and regardless of their intentions, they get screwed. And sometimes the bad guys can be so charismatic and charming that people forget about how f.... up they are, and will follow and forgive them again and again. That's much more realistic than those 2-dimensional characters who are either heroes or villains, with no in-between.

SPOILER
Think about Ned Stark, who found out that Joffrey (and the other 2 children) were from Jaime, not from Robert. What did he do? He went straight up to Cersei and told her about his findings. Was he a good guy? Certainly. Was he trying to be fair? Of course he was. Did he have good intentions? No doubt. What did he get in return? Imprisonment, and later, execution. What effect did it have on his family? Half of them got killed, the other half are wandering in the wilderness or held captive. Had he been a little more artful (and, perhaps, a little less "fair"), he might have sent the whole Lannister family into exile and gained the Starks more appreciation. And he could have saved his loved ones' lives (and his, of course).
Then there's Margaery Tyrell. She's charismatic, she's beautiful, she's witty, and she knows it. And she wants power. When she finds out about Joffrey's evil nature, she doesn't want to change him - rather, she plays with his weak spots and desires so that she gains his trust, and when that's done, it's much easier to kill him. That saves the realm from the reign of a sadistic and psychopatic little c... . And though I haven't read the books yet, I think the Tyrells are a lot less bad and far more suitable for the throne than the Lannisters are. So maybe their motives are not the most selfless, but the outcomes of their acts are desirable.
END OF SPOILER

(Sorry for making any mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)


----------



## All (Jan 13, 2014)

Maybe you're just missing the point? Part of the whole point is that the characters often do horrible things or go through horrible situations... just like the real world, after all, it's not all rainbows and sunshine all the time. Remember the characters are in a war situation, that means they're often in danger. 

It doesn't sound to me like you've watched the show or read the books if you think they're condoning those things. The books especially make it pretty clear how horrible it is, and it does have an effect on the characters. Some of the most popular characters among fans have died or gone through horrible things and been hurt in the end. Take Arya (the little girl who kills people) for example. Her story arc isn't condoning the fact that she kills people. It's about her being put in a horrible position where she needs to do that and (if you read the books) she does deal with a lot of psychological issues as a result of the things she's seen and been through. 

Who is the man who sex slave daughters? Can't think of a character who fits that. As to Daenerys, in the books she isn't raped by Drogo. Also, I don't see how the fact that she was married off in a political move (like most nobles are in the story, and were in real life over the centuries) make her any less strong. If anything the fact that many of these female characters manage to overcome and live through bad circumstances shows how strong they are. Are you going to say that most famous women through history weren't strong because they were married off by their families?

I do think the TV show has an issue with misogyny, it's kind of butchered some of the main female characters story arcs and their nudity is all female nudity (aside from Hodor I can't think of many guys who show up naked). But in the books I think half of these issues aren't present and the books are also more nuanced in showing the psychology of these characters.

That's why the find the books fascinating (and I like the show just because it's a chance to spend more time with those characters, I think it's pretty weak in comparison), because it explores that no matter how good or bad people are, bad things can happen to them regardless, and that sometimes what "good" and "bad" are aren't always clear. It explores many different characters, which I enjoy. I actually find some of the more "evil" characters incredibly fascinating because I like the chance to glimpse into their minds.

Acknowledging that traumatic, awful things can happen both in fiction and reality and being interested in the psychological and social causes and effects of those things is not the same as condoning them, and I prefer that to burying my head in the sand and pretending everything is always ok for everyone.

I'm also interested in the fact that you read The Picture of Dorian Gray as a moral lesson where he ends up dead as a direct consequence of not behaving according to your ethics. Given the author and the genre, I'm inclined to think part of the point is that it has several different interpretations. And if it makes you feel better some of the worse characters in Westeros (that's the name of the land, not "Valeria") do have bad things happen to them too.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Clearly modern 21st century western morality does not apply in this world. 
However this is a world a where the "anything goes" ethos is in full display. 
This is a human population void of a higher moral authority and obsessed with hedonism. 

That being said.. GOT is fantasy. And like most TV and movies, everything is condensed and exaggerated for the sake of drama.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

IamIcarus said:


> Fair enough I see your point. Yes it is quite interesting to see and experience things we are not realistically capable of experiencing. However, the characters in the tv show at leasts are often not even human they are too two dimensional too driven by one thing. Usually power. You cannot experience their world because they live it through lenses which are not human and hence are unrelateable.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


I see what you mean - some characters are more like caricatures than anything. Though I think power is something that most people secretly - if not overtly - wish they could have, so the characters are relatable in that sense.

For example, the degree that Frank Underwood goes to in House of Cards to get power is an almost absurd extreme. I would never go in the same realm as him to get power myself and yet, there's something alluring about being able to manipulate the world in such a way. Video games, RPGs in particular, play on this notion all the time; you are the "special" character whose power inevitably outgrows every other character you meet.

Particularly those of us who have internalized the "American Dream" - upward social mobility with no limits - eat this stuff up because it validates the idea that we can be the one who rises above everyone else.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

All said:


> I do think the TV show has an issue with misogyny, it's kind of butchered some of the main female characters story arcs and their nudity is all female nudity (aside from Hodor I can't think of many guys who show up naked). But in the books I think half of these issues aren't present and the books are also more nuanced in showing the psychology of these characters.


Actually quite a few do but the most notable example is the sex scene between Loras and Renly, where we are shown Loras shaving Renly's chest. There are also some scenes where men are naked with women when having sex though of course, it's not nearly as objectified if at all. 

With that said yes, the naked women get a bit tiresome after a while. You learn to shut it out or you end up quitting I suppose.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

@IamIcarus

Haha I think that incest is the least of a problem. In fact the relationship between Jaime and Cersei is the healthiest. They at least can say they loved and treated well each other. Just look at the rest : disgusting Slut Walder Frey, Robert the slut, Ned Stark- for all we know he betrayed and humiliated his wife binging into their home right under her nose the child of his lover to parade it to her. The funny thing is many people blame her because she rejects Jon saying 'it's not Jon's fault', but it somehow is hers because she's supposed to go through that sh*t.It's wife's duty to take care of the fruits of her husband's betrayal. Whatever husband does it's responsibility of his wife?I won't even mention all the rapists.

(I've read all the books and there isn't even nearly as much of porn as there's in the series, especially season 1, so it's just industry shoving porn down our throats)

The textual integrity is the game. Plot-twists, moves, shadow players and cunning.

If you want real fantasy and finest quality, I recommend Malazan Book of the Fallen.Worldbuilding is a master-piece, magic is alive and kicking, characters are distinct, stories often deeply touching, the emphasis is more on ethics and inner struggles than the game itself.

F*ck Martin, Steven Erikson FTW!

'Give me the evocation of a rich, complex and yet ultimately unknowable other world, with a compelling suggestion of intricate history and mythology and lore. Give me mystery amid the grand narrative ... Give me the world in which every sea hides a crumbled Atlantis, every ruin has a tale to tell, every broken blade is a silent legacy of struggles unknown. Give me in other words, the fantasy work of Steven Erikson ... a master of lost and forgotten epochs, a weaver of ancient epics' 

'Rare is the writer who so fluidly combines a sense of mythic power and depth of world with fully realized characters and thrilling action, but Steven Erikson manages it spectacularly'

@Orchidion What Martin depicts is thankfully not normal or acceptable for many people. Characters are not morally gray (ambivalent) in a challenging way , rather, they are just cunningly degenerate in state of bellum omnium contra omnes. I'd say animalistic, but don't want to insult animals. For an ethical being such world is not simply 'evil' but monotonous, dead, soulless. I found myself bored at times. 

The medieval gist from his books is a nono in modern fantasy. There's barely any worldbuilding to speak of.

OP may have some ‘bias,‘ but he's right that a tv program should not be just entertainment or raw intellectual cleverness, but a pointer on a moral compass of collective and individual consciousness, at least to a certain degree. GoT barely gives hints of it here and there as 'honor' and 'comradeship' But compassion? Nope. 
His world is incomplete.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> @_Orchidion_ What Martin depicts is thankfully not normal or acceptable for many people. Characters are not morally gray (ambivalent) in a challenging way , rather, they are just cunningly degenerate in state of bellum omnium contra omnes. I'd say animalistic, but don't want to insult animals. For an ethical being such world is not simply 'evil' but monotonous, dead, soulless. I found myself bored at times.
> 
> The medieval gist from his books is a nono in modern fantasy. There's barely any worldbuilding to speak of.
> 
> ...


You say this while ignoring Daenerys' contribution. And Jon Snow's. And Brienne's. And to an extent Robb Stark's. The first three of these characters act in a basically good manner, while the third is actually a good guy in pretty much every respect save the _motivation behind_ the war he's fighting. And you could even debate that. 

And of course, Ned's adultery aside, he's practically a freaking hero archetype in all other respects.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Daenerys is a wonderful character of this world, she has the perfect mix of power and compassion. I also really liked Brienne/Jamie dynamic and I hope it continues (no spoilers pls I only watch the show ) 
I have to agree though that overall there's a certain lack of compassion in this world that seems unrealistic compared to human behavior in general.


----------



## All (Jan 13, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Actually quite a few do but the most notable example is the sex scene between Loras and Renly, where we are shown Loras shaving Renly's chest. There are also some scenes where men are naked with women when having sex though of course, it's not nearly as objectified if at all.
> 
> With that said yes, the naked women get a bit tiresome after a while. You learn to shut it out or you end up quitting I suppose.


Not true, the scene between Loras and Renly wasn't really graphic on the level of most other sex scenes. Also, compare the number of female characters who have appeared naked, I can't think of very many male characters who have been naked on-screen (especially full frontal like it's happened with women) the same way, even when it would make sense.

In the most recent episode (spoilers ahead) we see several naked women, yet even in the scene where they could easily have gotten at least one naked guy (the brothel scene with Oberyn) the blond guy remained clothed.

I don't think there's any comparison here.
@Nightchill,

I don't know how you can have read the books and not think there are ANY compassionate characters. Look at characters like Brienne or Sansa. Robb, Dany and Jon are debatable but they also have a strong moral compass, just as with Ned, how accurate it is is open to interpretation but they seem to care about trying to help others.

Jaime and Cersei don't have a very healthy relationship. I love both of them but in the last few books especially, it's quite obvious there are many, many dysfunctional things about their dynamics (beyond the fact that they're siblings, I'm talking past that).

(Possible spoilers for anyone who may not have read the books ahead.) If you've read the books then you'd know it's not even clear whether Ned is Jon's father at all. Some popular theories among fans focus on that, like R+L=J, which I'd say is one that makes sense and if I remember right it's been hinted by GRRM that it may be correct. Until we know for sure I'm waiting to judge Ned on adultery. I completely agree Catelyn didn't act the wrong way about it as her dislike of Jon was justified (he could pose a threat to her legitimate children, he was a very visible sign of her husband's infidelity, in most of Westeros lords who have bastards keep them at some distance) and she was never abusive of him, just distant. If it turns out that Ned cheated I'm obviously going to think that's not good at all but there could be many narrative reasons for GRRM to write that in (giving Ned something to feel like he has to make up for, showing us scenes of Ned being emotionally affected by the war he's set out to fight and thus momentarily losing or questioning his usual moral compass).

I don't know why you say there's no worldbuilding to speak of... I wasn't aware that Westeros was a real continent.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> Daenerys is a wonderful character of this world, she has the perfect mix of power and compassion. I also really liked Brienne/Jamie dynamic and I hope it continues (no spoilers pls I only watch the show )
> I have to agree though that overall there's a certain lack of compassion in this world that seems unrealistic compared to human behavior in general.


I wouldn't completely agree with that. Tyrion displays genuine compassion a lot, in fact. So does Jaime, once we start to see things from his point of view.The Starks do in spades, actually--not just in general, each individual one, as does Margaery Tyrell (although how much of that's real compassion is unclear).

I think the "lack of compassion" is exaggerated, to be honest. People just aren't really used to what's common in the medieval era and in wars.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Chained Divinity said:


> I wouldn't completely agree with that. Tyrion displays genuine compassion a lot, in fact. So does Jaime, once we start to see things from his point of view.The Starks do in spades, actually--not just in general, each individual one, as does Margaery Tyrell (although how much of that's real compassion is unclear).
> 
> I think the "lack of compassion" is exaggerated, to be honest. People just aren't really used to what's common in the medieval era and in wars.


Sorry I forgot Tyrion, he is perhaps my favourite character in the series. Learning about Jamie when he talked to Brienne was definitely a nice experience and it did affect how we see the character more positively. 
My point was that even if some characters do have compassion, the society as a whole doesn't, at least how it's showed on TV. And maybe you are right.
But at the end of the day, it's fiction and each writer chooses how their world will be.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> You say this while ignoring Daenerys' contribution. And Jon Snow's. And Brienne's. And to an extent Robb Stark's. The first three of these characters act in a basically good manner, while the third is actually a good guy in pretty much every respect save the _motivation behind_ the war he's fighting. And you could even debate that.
> 
> And of course, Ned's adultery aside, he's practically a freaking hero archetype in all other respects.


I don't ignore. But Danaerys is 13-14yo, godammit, and achieved almost nothing without a man backing her up. Almost as soon as Jorah is gone she spreads her legs in exchange for benefits. She may be noble, but she's impotent.

Ned. I'd leave him out. Adultery aside? I think not. Everything counts. But I don't otherwise remember him as exactly intelligent, just experienced and relatively 'honorable'

Jon and Brienne are great, BUT Martin's world is such that even when influential goodness appears it's rarely, in too few characters , overpowered and overshadowed by nastiness. It is a struggle, but in distasteful disproportion for many.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Personally I like the series coz it's interesting to see how each character develop in this medieval kind of scenario where there are struggles with survival and one's morality. Violence scenes are hard to watch and it makes my Fe uncomfortable, but GoT is not just about violence and sex, there is goodness and morality in some characters too. Also, violence in medieval like environments were common, and then in reality the good doesn't always win too. Not sure how it will end, but I'm rooting for the good guys to succeed in the end.


----------



## izebize (Jan 31, 2012)

Nightchill said:


> I don't ignore. But Danaerys is 13-14yo, godammit, and achieved almost nothing without a man backing her up. Almost as soon as Jorah is gone she spreads her legs in exchange for benefits. She may be noble, but she's impotent.


Exactly. I never understood the fuss about her. IMHO she sees the world in black-and-white and she's only powerful with her dragons... take them out and she's just a lost little girl.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> I don't ignore. But Danaerys is 13-14yo, godammit, and achieved almost nothing without a man backing her up.


Yeah, and Bilbo Baggins didn't accomplish much without Gandalf and the Dwarves backing him up. Doesn't make him irrelevant. Same with Hannibal and the A-Team....Luke Skywalker and the Rebels...

There's a certain pattern here, actually. 



> Ned. I'd leave him out. Adultery aside? I think not. Everything counts. But I don't otherwise remember him as exactly intelligent, just experienced and relatively 'honorable'


And? Your criteria was "noble", not "perfect in every way". 



> Jon and Brienne are great, BUT Martin's world is such that even when influential goodness appears it's rarely, in too few characters , overpowered and overshadowed by nastiness. It is a struggle, but in distasteful disproportion for many.


I suppose I can see a simple dislike of darker content as a legitimate reason to dislike GoT. But that does _not_ make the world morally simplistic or poorly written.




izebize said:


> Exactly. I never understood the fuss about her. IMHO she sees the world in black-and-white and she's only powerful with her dragons... take them out and she's just a lost little girl.


...I can sort of understand this point, actually, but at the same time she'd be at least as badass as Arya, I think.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> I don't ignore. But Danaerys is 13-14yo, godammit, and achieved almost nothing without a man backing her up. Almost as soon as Jorah is gone she spreads her legs in exchange for benefits. She may be noble, but she's impotent.
> 
> Ned. I'd leave him out. Adultery aside? I think not. Everything counts. But I don't otherwise remember him as exactly intelligent, just experienced and relatively 'honorable'
> 
> Jon and Brienne are great, BUT Martin's world is such that even when influential goodness appears it's rarely, in too few characters , overpowered and overshadowed by nastiness. It is a struggle, but in distasteful disproportion for many.


I agree. Dany is not really good at anything. She just falls into luck and good situations. Can't stand her in the books. Though I like that she is all about revenge and justice.

Snow is boring. The Starks are like the only honorable people on the show, and that is why they lose. 

And yes, there is too much sex on the show. I think they are doing it just for the sake of doing it, I think it could just be cheap exposition, but they also want to be edgy. I think overall they have distilled the books into a show pretty well though. Making books into film is an art itself. You have to create new scenes to bridge a vast number of ideas and scenes. So instead of Jaime going through a lot of the Kingsguard history in the books, which is interesting, it is reduced to Joffrey just giving like a few sentences, and making a crack at Jaime. That's all you get. But I still think it gets the point across about how Jaime has been so conflicted his whole life. I think he has one of the most interesting stories.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

> Just because a character is two-dimensional it doesn't mean they are automatically less entertaining or dislikable when compared to a three-dimensional character.


Well the characters are often very similar in that they are driven by the same things. Sure they have little quirks of whatever personality but they are just cans of soup with different labels. Sure, some characters are motivated by different motivations but still they remain just blunt and blatant manifestations of that emotion. The complexity of the characters is very limited, unrealistic, it may just be me but watching -as someone said before- "caricatures" and simple basic characters, are not very entertaining to watch. You might as well say, and then Power Hungry no.5 backstabbed Virtuous no.1 or.. Power Hunrgy no.32 has dragons. Very little subtlety.



> Texts can have impacts in more than one way.


Sure.. But what all great texts have in common, and i mean all - doesnt even have to be stylistically rendered - have great displays of human nature. GOT, does not have that, it is not a worthy text. Just as i said before a time killer.



> No. We can hold the producers of fiction responsible for their productions, but the production itself cannot be held responsible for the contents within it.


Of course this follows from the statement that humans are moral creatures and they are. Morals are intrinsic in all societies and since we are social beings they are within us. Hell, Genghis Khan and his clan of mongols had morals, they were not allowed to kill their brothers and oppose their leader, much like the seemingly uncivilised group lead by Drogo(dont know their name) had morals and views of what is right and wrong. So as long as there is a society there are morals within a human being. And to create a whole and intersting human being it must have morals. Good fiction must have intriguing characters. It also follows that to have a fiction with morals and the problems morality brings is a given because to not have repercussions for immoral acts does not reflect the true state of that given society and humanity(humans who are perpetually immoral are punished spiritually or by socially imposed law) and hence paints an 1) unrealistic 2) unintriguing chacter. As for the rest refer to previous coment.



> No. When I fantasize about how I have sex with someone else I am objectifying their bodies. It's not a bad thing in itself. As a mentality objectification is likely partly innate. The problem is when we start objectifying someone else always in favor of their actual qualities as a person.


True, thank you. I have thorougly revised my view of objectifiction. However the way women are portrayed in GOT - as women seen as just meat- is objectifcation. It leaves strong suggestions of the truly wicked form of objectificaiton in our minds eg. the men talking about "chickens" in the most recent episode.



> Sure, and that's why people watch it because they enjoy time killers.


People do enjoy time killers. People also enjoy great works of fiction. I would hope great works of fiction are more intriguing than time killers and also are time killers - but not just that.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

I adore this thread. Mainly because most people fail to realize that Game of Thrones steals a lot from European History. The War of the Roses, the Borgias, the One Hundred Years War, medieval society, and so on down the line until oblivion and the surrounding areas.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Should also add that this theme is common in this type of show. Spartacus and Rome for example, both great shows, and I would recommend to anybody who likes GOT. Tons of sex and violence. Spartacus particularly, a lot of man on man stuff. But these guys were tough. Guys from Spartacus would kick anybody's ass from GOT.
> 
> There is also a pirate show on right now. I like it so far, Black Sails. Tons of sex and innuendo there too.


I couldn't watch Spartacus because I found it boring. Sex and violence are not the saving grace if a show, even though I like GoT and Rome.

Rome is legit for most part, that's how the Romans actually lived and how their society worked, that's mostly why like it and why I like GoT, it's fantasy based in reality.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

IamIcarus said:


> I am most definitely condemning Game of Thrones in terms of how dangerous it is to the human psyche.


Bear in mind that correlation does not imply causation! In my opinion those who believe that murder, rape, savagery, blackmail, etc. are acceptable behaviors have been long since nutters prior to watching the show.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> I couldn't watch Spartacus because I found it boring. Sex and violence are not the saving grace if a show, even though I like GoT and Rome.
> 
> Rome is legit for most part, that's how the Romans actually lived and how their society worked, that's mostly why like it and why I like GoT, it's fantasy based in reality.


It wasn't just about that though. It was about struggle, politics, brotherhood,etc.. It was actually a diverse show.

Batiatus for example, is one of the funniest characters ever. 

"That sh*t f**k beckons me to the city only to spurn me like a thin-waisted whore. Once again the gods spread the cheeks and ram caulk in f**king ass!"


"You have no mother! You were belched from the c**t of the underworld—that's why I favour you."

"You kiss my cheek only to finger my ass" 


"I am a Lanista. Like my forefathers, a trainer of Gladiators. I see things in men that they themselves have lost.

A small spark, an ember. I give it breath, tinder, until it ignites in the arena. I burn for no cause but my own."


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It wasn't just about that though. It was about struggle, politics, brotherhood,etc.. It was actually a diverse show.
> 
> Batiatus for example, is one of the funniest characters ever.
> 
> ...


Like I said, that how the Roman actually worked for the most part.

Batiatus was the best character in the show hands down.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I don't really think that this entire discussion should be about this show alone, if we're going to discuss the moral and ethical ambiguity of the media and entertainment.

But, honestly, I agree with the OP, even if it wasn't worded as artfully as they might have liked.

Media and entertainment becomes greyer and greyer as time goes on. Brutality is pushed, slowly, but surely, and the boundaries are continually moving, and changing what is socially acceptable. It may or may not be true, but it seems to me that we are entering our own world of exceeding banality, crudeness, and profanity, in the name of being 'liberal' and 'free spirited'.

I'm not even a conservative individual, per se. I'd consider myself to be a free spirit, sure. But, nobody's drawing lines to what is, or isn't appropriate anymore. Everything is fair game. And, although this might look harmless on the surface, I think that there _could __be __*very *_psychological, and socioeconomic consequences that no one is even considering.

I think it's important to think critically about subjects which may go against your own moral and ethical ideals. I never used to do this, until the last several years, and I made a very profound, and life-changing discovery.

When you're watching a show, how many uncomfortable and sometimes repulsive topics are you ignoring, and/or glazing over, in order to enjoy it? You probably haven't even thought about it before, really. It's just something that happens in a show, and you internally cringe, and wait for the good parts to come up again. You don't think the topic is okay, and you'd never do anything like this yourself, and you even might think they shouldn't show this on television... But, because the quality of the writing is good, and you enjoy the immersive world and characters, you're willing to forgo that.

I think that we're actually entering a world that may be even more dangerous than the more repressed and rightless world we'd made before. Now, it's taboo to talk about subjects as being taboo. It's taboo to speak up against something which you find to be wrong, and against human progress (Not necessarily religiously concerned!), because you will be ostracized and shunned for attempting to share your views, and to try to get people to think a little more critically about what they're engaging in.

Maybe this is sappy, but children _are _watching this show, and others like it. Is that acceptable to you, that the next generation, and then the next, are going to be pushing these boundaries, and not understanding about the lines that have been drawn by previous generations? Why, or why not? I'm honestly very curious, because I'm starting to wonder where people are drawing the line.

Does everyone ignore the direction everything is headed in? Is it not hedonistic, and Brave New Worldesque, for anyone else, or am I, along with a sparse few others, the only one who thinks that maybe people are driving quite a bit too far off the brink?

Maybe this show, and many others, are derived from realistic depictions of history. But, does that make it right to flaunt, and to continually push, and show more, and more brutality? If these are, indeed, realistic scenes being shown, then you are a witness to a crime scene. You're seeing something which is happening in the world around you all the time. Would you want to see actual events taking place?

Would you like the show less if the sex scenes were fade-to-black? If the violence was unseen, and/or cut back?

I'm not necessarily encouraging censorship, although I do think that a lot could be gained from that.

But, do you really think that pushing the descriptive, graphic scenes to their most dramatic, and flaunted forms, is really adding to the narrative? To the characters? To the world? Do you really want the writers to guide you through every detail, and not leave anything to the imagination?

I'd encourage everyone to consider all of these questions, and take a step back to answer them honestly for themselves, instead of jumping on the band wagon without thinking about it first.
@_IamIcarus_


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't really think that this entire discussion should be about this show alone, if we're going to discuss the moral and ethical ambiguity of the media and entertainment.
> 
> But, honestly, I agree with the OP, even if it wasn't worded as artfully as they might have liked.
> 
> ...


I somewhat agree with this. Though most normal people, will not negatively be affected by these shows. But I do believe that this stuff can influence weaker minds. Like school shootings in America. This shit never happened in the 50s and 60s, yet guns were all over. Why? Because nobody thought about it. Now the idea has been planted. It is such a common occurrence, that it becomes a practical avenue for people who want to go out. It is like the archetype, that others can now follow. Pandora's box was opened. School shootings are a huge part of social consciousness now, they weren't decades ago.

I don't need these details either. I mean, why do I have to watch a 30 second sex scene. I know they are fucking. I know what it entails. I know it has consequences. I don't need to see two models rubbing all over each other. All that needs to be communicated, is that sex happened. 

They just want to beat into our heads how cruel humans can be. But I already know that. No amount of human cruelty would surprise me. So they aren't actually revealing anything to me. These kind of visceral scenes appeal to people who need that blatant stimulation, to reveal the world can actually be like this. Because they have no imagination, and need movies and TV to even think about these things. Then they will go back to forgetting them right after it is over.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

wait, women aren't fucktoys? shit. /sarcasm


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Aya the Whaler said:


> I adore this thread. Mainly because most people fail to realize that Game of Thrones steals a lot from European History. The War of the Roses, the Borgias, the One Hundred Years War, medieval society, and so on down the line until oblivion and the surrounding areas.


Is it "stealing" or is it "using to make absolutely beautiful poetry?"


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

SharpestNiFe said:


> Is it "stealing" or is it "using to make absolutely beautiful poetry?"


Depends on how you want to see it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

That's strange.

Shows like Game of Thrones are what actually give me hope for humanity.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> That's strange.
> 
> Shows like Game of Thrones are what actually give me hope for humanity.


I'm not against you by any means, but I'm really curious to know by.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Aya the Whaler said:


> I'm not against you by any means, but I'm really curious to know by.


I'm not sure exactly.

I just watch the show and get a general sense that humanity is actually making moral progress, and I don't get that feeling when I watch other shows.

I imagine maybe there were plays back during the age of Enlightenment, or something like that, that gave people similar feelings at the time.

It's kinda like that I think.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JRR Martin was channeling both Hitler's and Attila the Hun's spirts whenever he was writing A Song of Fire and Ice. That is how we are in this situation today. America's youths have been creating groups to wage wars when they never done violence to one another since the 1960's, and to sell the womenfolk from other clans so that they can get alliances. Despite the fact that they go to war despite that anyways. It's a tough world out there, and sooner or later Obama will conspire to rule the entire United States with his Death Panels and Homosexual Communist Kanyans.


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

Objectification is a _stupid_ term to describe dehumanization.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

eydimork said:


> Objectification is a _stupid_ term to describe dehumanization.


No it isnt. Objectification presupposes dehumanization but dehumanization does not presuppose objectification. For example, a person could be called a beast or a pest hence turning the person into a less than human - but not an object.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not sure exactly.
> 
> I just watch the show and get a general sense that humanity is actually making moral progress, and I don't get that feeling when I watch other shows.
> 
> ...


I like how you think because that's exactly how I see it. GoT is a evolution of morality. In the GoT world don't have the same moralities as us, it's clearly based on the past of humanity that cannot be judged in the same standards as our modern times. GoT will evolve just as we did or so we hope.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> I like how you think because that's exactly how I see it. GoT is a evolution of morality. In the GoT world don't have the same moralities as us, it's clearly based on the past of humanity that cannot be judged in the same standards as our modern times. GoT will evolve just as we did or so we hope.


You are giving Martin too much credit. He actually thinks the world is still like that. That's why he said he doesn't believe in God, because there is so much suffering in the world.



> _I think the books are realistic. I’ve always liked gray characters. And as for the gods, I’ve never been satisfied by any of the answers that are given. If there really is a benevolent loving god, why is the world full of rape and torture? Why do we even have pain? I was taught pain is to let us know when our body is breaking down. Well, why couldn’t we have a gas light? Like a dashboard light? If Chevrolet could come up with that, why couldn’t God? Why is agony a good way to handle things?_


Stanislaw Lem said something similar, but he was a real intellectual, and put it more concisely:

became an atheist "*for moral reasons ... the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created ... intentionally*".[SUP][6][/SUP] Lem called himself an "agnostic" later in life.


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

IamIcarus said:


> No it isnt. Objectification presupposes dehumanization but dehumanization does not presuppose objectification. For example, a person could be called a beast or a pest hence turning the person into a less than human - but not an object.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


"I have objectified a woman" means "I have perceived an object and classified said object as woman." 

"I have dehumanized a woman" means "I have deprived this woman of humanity."

They are extremely different terms. And the term objectification should not be misused.


----------



## bdimp (Apr 18, 2014)

Not to derail this discussion but Game of Thrones is great because the good guy doesn't win. In fact, if you like the character, chances are he's already dead, you just haven't read the books.

Continue your disagreement about sex.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You are giving Martin too much credit. He actually thinks the world is still like that. That's why he said he doesn't believe in God, because there is so much suffering in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He based it on History, so no.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

The good die at the hands of the evil because of the nature of reality. These are not moralistic tales, George R.R. Martin isn't the Brothers Grimm. He wrought the story as an escape, as an honest portrayal of a harsh world.

Anyway, my main point was this: you claim that the show (which I haven't seen, but I've read the series) is an insidious effect on our society. In actual fact, I think it shows the humanity in a great many people. We keenly feel each innocent death, and despise those characters we perceive as evil and wrong. If anything, the show must therefore remind us of the goodness we value, not the evil we can do. Inevitably, viewers align themselves on the good side. So any, almost immeasurable change we undergo is, arguably, good.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aya the Whaler said:


> He based it on History, so no.


Extensive argument, but wrong. Life is actually cheap in many parts of the world, and life still is suffering. Horse's mouth.


----------



## jcatenaci (Mar 28, 2014)

IamIcarus said:


> Game of Thrones is a rather interesting tv show, yes it is complex superficially - in terms of the story line and the history of the houses but it is also complex in terms of its entertainment value and impressions on the viewer. I state this given the reason that throughout history, sex and violence has been employed as tools employed to attract the public. The two concepts of sex and violence are rephrased psychoanalytically as "libido" and "thanatos" each meaning desire and death respectively. The tv show is drenched in both sex and violence - sometimes both are intertwined in scenes - that way both the gratification seeking drives of the libido and thanatos can find a "cathartic" release. The wants of the "id"(the id is the combination of libido and thanatos) are indulged and temporarily sated the process of which may result in an addiction. Which is, i suppose, greatly contributive to why it has such a following. I will admit the way GOT is styled is pretty cool though and the story line is intricate and impressive, however without the twin heads of the id dragon, it is a largely unemotional and nonspiritual show.
> 
> Another disturbing aspect of Game of Thrones is the fact that it has seemingly no interest in moralistic righteousness. You may claim that the dangerous, amoral lives of the people living in the land of Valeria are simply the cold hard facts of reality. But when you see the good and virtuous die at the hand of the incestuous and immoral without repercussions it leaves the wrong impression on its viewers. It gives its viewers the suggestion that you can get away with immoral acts without reprimand. It shapes our unconscious perceptions of reality. There is a reason why the depraved protagonists in all the great books end up dead or in horrid circumstances. Think of Dorian Gray who ends up more soulless monster than human, or the pedophile in Lolita who ends up losing everything and is imprisoned. These are the consequences of one who indulges in immorality - at least in reality.
> 
> ...


And yet, all of this depravity is what makes it feel so true to life, particularly life in the Middle Ages. What I loved about the books that has kind of been neglected in the show, though, is the running theme of the poor and impoverished suffering at the hands of the powerful. The show touches upon it, but never dwells on it as long as the books do and I feel this is to the detriment of the greater intellectual impact of the show. In book 2 of A Song of Ice and Fire (the literary name of Game of Thrones), when Arya screws over the Lannisters and allows the Freys and Boltons to take Harrenhal (something skipped in the show), the common people constantly harass her, telling her that she's doomed all of them and that they hope that she(Arya) is the first one that they rape. After Arya escapes we hear that, as the poor common folk in Harrenhal had predicted, the Boltons handed over the fort to the mercenary group *The Bloody Mummers*(the guys who cut off Jaime Lannister's hand in the book), who inevitably fell in combat to Gregor Clegane and his charming band of misfits when they were sent by Tywin Lannister to retake Harrenhal from Stark hands. They slaughter every last innocent person in the fort because Arya allowed her brother's men to take Harrenhal from the Lannisters. So is she responsible? The book lets you draw your own conclusions, and it's really what I love about the series so much.

The book also slowly demonstrates that save 6 or 7 (Jon, Daenerys, Tyrion, Samwell, Brienne, Davos, and possibly Sansa) there really are no "good" characters. Also, if you look at all of them, they may get kicked around, but they move up and down in the world along regular character arcs as normal fantasy characters do (except poor, poor, Sansa.... But her naivetė DID kinda get Ned killed...) Everyone else has a conflicted personality, and that includes Bran and especially Catlyn. I can't say too much about Bran because much of his more questionable actions occur in the coming books on his quest as a skin walker and Catlyn was a monstrously selfish jerk. Her treatment of Jon, her scolding of Edmure for protecting the people of the Riverlands during the war that her family started, and her release of Jaime which undermined her son's authority and made him look weak in front of his forces (possibly emboldening Bolton to team up with the scorned, vengeful Walder Frey) have kind of left a bad taste in my mouth concerning her character. 

As for the show? Yeah, it kind of follows HBO tropes as far as sex and violence goes, but they've kinda been doing that since Oz. The violence is in the book, the nudity, however, is an embellishment by the producers, lol! Also, don't worry, though the good guys can meet nasty fates the bad guys in Westeros will ALWAYS meet nasty fates. Our most recent douche to shuffle the mortal coil proved that, and there are 2 more nasty deaths to come this season for bad guys, plus a vicious torturous fate for anotheR who's fate will be ambiguous, and a teaser of the terrible fates of 2 more of our most hated characters. Karma comes to Westeros, her name is Daenerys and she has dragons that get bigger each season.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Moonrise said:


> The good die at the hands of the evil because of the nature of reality. These are not moralistic tales, George R.R. Martin isn't the Brothers Grimm. He wrought the story as an escape, as an honest portrayal of a harsh world.
> 
> Anyway, my main point was this: you claim that the show (which I haven't seen, but I've read the series) is an insidious effect on our society. In actual fact, I think it shows the humanity in a great many people. We keenly feel each innocent death, and despise those characters we perceive as evil and wrong. If anything, the show must therefore remind us of the goodness we value, not the evil we can do. Inevitably, viewers align themselves on the good side. So any, almost immeasurable change we undergo is, arguably, good.


I agree. I had the same type of idea when I was watching 'The Wire' (brilliant series). You mourn the loss at a well developed character and look at the system that creates the drama, then turn it back to real life and see the comparisons, all the while shaking your head. 

It can easily be taken back the real life situations where a nation is held hostage by political entities and their hubris. People suffer at the hands of those in power. The only real difference here in this series is that you can be more disengaged by the fact it's a fantasy world.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

eydimork said:


> "I have objectified a woman" means "I have perceived an object and classified said object as woman."
> 
> "I have dehumanized a woman" means "I have deprived this woman of humanity."
> 
> They are extremely different terms. And the term objectification should not be misused.


No.. you deprive someone of their humanity when you dehumanize but in this case you objectify a woman because you disregard the very sentience and life of the woman. When you objectify you think soley of the body as an object (does she have the right tits, the right ass...etc). When you dehumanize it is possible to not just deprive one of humanity but give them other qualities.( the nazis dehumanized the jews by treating them as pests and calling them as such). Objectification is far more specific. Why else has the term objectification been used constantly by feminists? Those chicks know their shit.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

IamIcarus said:


> No.. you deprive someone of their humanity when you dehumanize but in this case you objectify a woman because you disregard the very sentience and life of the woman. When you objectify you think soley of the body as an object (does she have the right tits, the right ass...etc). When you dehumanize it is possible to not just deprive one of humanity but give them other qualities.( the nazis dehumanized the jews by treating them as pests and calling them as such). Objectification is far more specific. Why else has the term objectification been used constantly by feminists? Those chicks know their shit.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


I care for the life of more than half of the female characters that show up naked and I like their bodies and personalities, they're pretty.
Is that objectify? Is that for women?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I somewhat agree with this. Though most normal people, will not negatively be affected by these shows. But I do believe that this stuff can influence weaker minds. Like school shootings in America. This shit never happened in the 50s and 60s, yet guns were all over. Why? Because nobody thought about it. Now the idea has been planted. It is such a common occurrence, that it becomes a practical avenue for people who want to go out. It is like the archetype, that others can now follow. Pandora's box was opened. School shootings are a huge part of social consciousness now, they weren't decades ago.


Actually, about the school shootings...those were happening for some time. I'd also point out that the archetype in question has caused merely tens of deaths per year, as well. Despite the prevalence in the _news_ media, they aren't actually all that common. 



> I don't need these details either. I mean, why do I have to watch a 30 second sex scene. I know they are fucking. I know what it entails. I know it has consequences. I don't need to see two models rubbing all over each other. All that needs to be communicated, is that sex happened.
> 
> They just want to beat into our heads how cruel humans can be. But I already know that. No amount of human cruelty would surprise me. So they aren't actually revealing anything to me.


But then, that sort of makes you ask the question, doesn't it? If _you_ don't need the actual violence in the scene to know what kind of stuff could be inflicted, well...why would the people who're already possessed of the tools and confidence to actually carry violence out? 



> These kind of visceral scenes appeal to people who need that blatant stimulation, to reveal the world can actually be like this. Because they have no imagination, and need movies and TV to even think about these things. Then they will go back to forgetting them right after it is over.


And yet, the people who'll emulate it remember them.



Aya the Whaler said:


> I care for the life of more than half of the female characters that show up naked and I like their bodies and personalities, they're pretty.
> Is that objectify? Is that for women?


I'd also point out that under the current understanding of what counts as objectification your husband would be objectifying you fairly frequently. Which sort of sheds light on how the definition doesn't work.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Actually, about the school shootings...those were happening for some time. I'd also point out that the archetype in question has caused merely tens of deaths per year, as well. Despite the prevalence in the _news_ media, they aren't actually all that common.


The vast majority of those on that list were accidents, or one person just in a dispute with another. It includes any time a firearm is discharged anywhere near a school. I'm talking about mass shootings, which are considered "rampage killings". Which there are more of now. 




> But then, that sort of makes you ask the question, doesn't it? If _you_ don't need the actual violence in the scene to know what kind of stuff could be inflicted, well...why would the people who're already possessed of the tools and confidence to actually carry violence out?


The same way an enzyme works. By lowering resistance, and being a catalyst. By pushing a process that was only slightly possible, to more possible. They speed it up, and make it easier. Why do we need enzymes?




> And yet, the people who'll emulate it remember them.


Mimicry is the easiest thing in the world. It gives imagination to people who previously lacked it. It gives them a practical avenue, that they couldn't come up with on their own.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

Indeed. I enjoy the show, but always walk away feeling deprived.

The occasional man sausage is a teardrop in an ocean of tits.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

I agree, I was already disgussed with the first episode, and thought it to be extremely boring. I tried to watch the second episode, but couldn't handle it anymore. I did emphatize with Daenerys somewhat. All of the other characters I found appalling.

So I mostly agree with @IamIcarus and I am 26 years old.

I also had difficulty empathizing with Humbert Humbert from Lolita, which is why I didn't enjoy reading the latter part of the book, except for it's style.

Watch "The Thin Red Line" instead!


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Chained Divinity said:


> I'd also point out that under the current understanding of what counts as objectification your husband would be objectifying you fairly frequently. Which sort of sheds light on how the definition doesn't work.


Because that's totally what he's doing when he looks at me. It's ridiculous. I want him to look at me and think I'm pretty. I'm not trying myself into an object, I just want him to enjoy me in every level.

I always found funny how objectification of females is always brought up, but when women start drawing and writing and looking at photos and objectifying men nobody talks about it. I guess it's okay when women do it and men are the real monster.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

Aya the Whaler said:


> Because that's totally what he's doing when he looks at me. It's ridiculous. I want him to look at me and think I'm pretty. I'm not trying myself into an object, I just want him to enjoy me in every level.
> 
> I always found funny how objectification of females is always brought up, but when women start drawing and writing and looking at photos and objectifying men nobody talks about it. I guess it's okay when women do it and men are the real monster.


Of course he doesnt objectify you. He appreciates you - body and mind. Its when that appreciation of the body mutates into a deeper more carnal sort of lust that it becomes objectification. When the thought is one of soley using a machine to sate your lustful desires. If the relationship and intention is more than just that, it would be safe to say that it is not entirely objectification.

I completely understand what you mean in the second comment. For sure men are objectified but they are rarely so usually diminuted. By which i mean made small...made into an object - a machine. Women are made the objects in which men parade their pseudo potency. Men are the real monster because we are often the perpetrators of diminutive acts. If you look at porn. The average porn youll find on the net. It is inherently diminutive, i will not go into details...actually i will. Think about it honestly. What is the purpose of one ejaculating on a womans face? The money shot as it is called in the biz. It is a victory. A conquest. A statement of, i have done it...i have conquered this woman. Porn is the ultimate contributer to objectification and almost every mans perceptions are shaped by it to some extent. Nude scenes in Game of Thrones are contributing too in ways mentioned before but it can also be a gateway into the more serious stuff. 

In addition it should be stated that one of the aspects of human nature is our attraction to transgression or things considered taboo. Interests in porn or depravity will be ever mutating. Here i allude to Picture of Dorian Gray when Dorian starts of on his hedonistic journey he breaks a girls heart but feels utter remorse and then eventually kills his best friend without any qualms at all. Porn will mutate.. from pictures of a naked lady. To people having sex. To double penetration. To bondage. To rape porn... To some more really wierd stuff. Im sure people would know. But you get the idea. It mutates and mutates and as you can see from the aforementioned progression...it progressively becomes more and more objectification. So when in game of thrones a girl is almost raped.. thats sending something. A message. Something akin to. Hey you liking this? You getting excited?

Forgive my vulgarities. I aim merely to illustrate my point. . I am usually so kawaii :3.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

IamIcarus said:


> Of course he doesnt objectify you. He appreciates you - body and mind. Its when that appreciation of the body mutates into a deeper more carnal sort of lust that it becomes objectification. When the thought is one of soley using a machine to sate your lustful desires. If the relationship and intention is more than just that, it would be safe to say that it is not entirely objectification.
> 
> I completely understand what you mean in the second comment. For sure men are objectified but they are rarely so usually diminuted. By which i mean made small...made into an object - a machine. Women are made the objects in which men parade their pseudo potency. Men are the real monster because we are often the perpetrators of diminutive acts. If you look at porn. The average porn youll find on the net. It is inherently diminutive, i will not go into details...actually i will. Think about it honestly. What is the purpose of one ejaculating on a womans face? The money shot as it is called in the biz. It is a victory. A conquest. A statement of, i have done it...i have conquered this woman. Porn is the ultimate contributer to objectification and almost every mans perceptions are shaped by it to some extent. Nude scenes in Game of Thrones are contributing too in ways mentioned before but it can also be a gateway into the more serious stuff.
> 
> ...


I understand what you mean, but still I find disgusting that nobody discusses the objectification of men, especially gay men, by various women that are part of different fandoms which includes GoT or how Japanese animes have fanservice and porn directed only to women (both lesbian and gay, especially).
It all starts with a pretty guy, then he's shirtless, then he's naked, then he's making out with someone else, then sex, then bondage, then incest, then rape.
It's the same progress but the real monster is still men even though women do the same.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Orchidion said:


> George Martin omitted the virtue-is-rewarded stereotype from his work, because it is unrealistic.
> 
> Martin (and hence GoT) displays excessive sceneries of violence and sex, because it is part of everyday life. By adding this elements he creates a more accurate and realistic portrayal of events and protagonists. You are indulging in idealistic fantasies, when you condemn it.


Well, extreme violence and rape are not part of my everyday life. I have no troubles with extreme violence if violence has a purpose in telling the story. If you take Irreversible by Gaspar Noe for example.



> The paragraph you wrote on moral righteousness is disturbingly naive. We live in a world, where no day passes without murder, rape, violence and abuse.


I read it in the news all the time, and so it has become normalized. There is no reason to respect, embrace and champion murder, rape, violence and abuse.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The vast majority of those on that list were accidents, or one person just in a dispute with another. It includes any time a firearm is discharged anywhere near a school. I'm talking about mass shootings, which are considered "rampage killings". Which there are more of now.


Well, I'd mention that your point is true of the entire timeline, but yeah, looking it over you appear to be right. 

I would _also_ say, though, that the trend _begins_ in the 1980s, when violence in media was still not anywhere near the level of GoT. So one wonders how indicative that really is of things...






> The same way an enzyme works. By lowering resistance, and being a catalyst. By pushing a process that was only slightly possible, to more possible. They speed it up, and make it easier. Why do we need enzymes?


But of course, you and I both know that whatever lowered resistance that creates, isn't enough. Many people watch that stuff and _don't_ kill people. The people that do have a ton of other risk factors, generally, and it's _they_ whom I suspect would be aware of violent subtexts even with some degree of blacking out or implication-only setups. 


Still thinking about the last point.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Not a truism.


Every person has morals, except for maybe clinical psychopaths, since they have an extremely diminished sense of empathy.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

babblingbrook said:


> Every person has morals, except for maybe clinical psychopaths, since they have an extremely diminished sense of empathy.


Well yes, everyone does. Including terrorists, rapists and many awful people. The Ku Klux Klan certainly appealed to _a_ system of morality. 

So appealing to a sense of morality inside people seems...off.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

I'm glad you agree. 

Humbert Humbert i could empathize with quite well. He was a living contradiction, an intellectual and professor of french literature (hence the aspects of human nature) and also an irrational, self deceptive pedophile. I identify with that quite well, as im sure many should be able to. How when we, despite our knowledge and theoretical wisdom, act in ways, make decisions and fall into habits which are against what we know to be the truth of the situation. I believe it was a terrific journey. It was a book that was completely centered on him and how HE saw things, but because it was written in such a biased way we are able to catch a glimpse into his thought processes, his errors in judgement and his overwhelming self deception. It is a very human thing to have those faults but then again it is within human capacity to be rational and resilient. Humbert's end shows the inevitability of what will happen if the faults of a human are maintained throughout a period in ones life. Now that's depth, most definitely not superficial eye candy which is what im sure many people would have thought picking it up :}.

Thin Red Line looks interesting i'll check it out. thanks.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@IamIcarus


> I* am most definitely condemning Game of Thrones in terms of how dangerous it is to the human psyche.* However, it is entertaining nonetheless, i often skip past the sex scenes but i enjoy how impressively styled it is as well as the fight scenes, not the irredeemably savage ones like the scene where Arya kills three men. Like - come on, really? A child portrayed at possibly the most extreme stage of immorality - vindictive, teasing and pleasurable murder.


oh please....
only to those who are too immature to handle it. the idea that the psyche of a mature adult would be damaged by a fictional and clearly exaggerated piece of entertainment is as absurd as it is condescending. even in the real world, fucked up shit happens, but the majority of us are easily able to make the distinction between these activities and activities which are morally reasonable. your post reads with the implication that adult entertainment has some moral responsibility to censor out sexuality and violence for the sake of the public good, but all this would do is further shield people from the darker aspects of reality and make for very boring entertainment.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

IamIcarus said:


> No not bad. But when its the supposed protagonists talking about a female in that way the message is different. Its seemingly innocuous brcause these are the good guys.


I'm not remembering the scene you speak of, but in GoT I'd offer that even most of the protagonists (bar Daenerys, actually, and most of the Starks), are portrayed as bad people. Tyrion included. 



> Im intrigued. What do you mean by the dynamics of sex and violence?


In the case of violence, what drives someone to it. How it affects them and the world around them, that sort of thing. In the case of sex...analyzing how a given person views sexuality, and how it comes into play in _their_ sexuality. Analyzing the variety of possible feelings one can have about a sex act. That sort of thing. 

I mean, the dynamics aspect is just _one_ of the benefits for me. There's also the whole Greek-virtue aspect (no, I don't emulate that culture) and plain old titillation. But still. 



> Hm. I think it is necessary to incorporate aspects of the deepest depravities in texts. But allude to them not illustrate them. Children will not need to know about the horrors of the world until later on.. and even still an allusion to rape in a childrens text would bring about the appropriate reaction whereas the illustration and fetishization of rape would be giving the wrong impression.


Well it's possible to illustrate that (quite graphically, in fact) without fetishizing it--_Slaughterhouse Five_ doesn't quite do it with _rape_, but there are some sketchier sex scenes and _craptons_ of violence in it. None of it makes the stuff look that good. 


But I could see that this isn't always quite how such portrayals work. I also have a crazy number of different thoughts on all that, but I'll try to assemble them in a way that makes sense. XD

I'm sort of wondering if the problem isn't _violence_, per se, but violence without the necessary consequences taken into account--situations where there's violence but what it does to the people around you isn't shown, and neither are the things that could possibly happen to you. Where the choice to do harm isn't a meaningful one, and something people try to avoid.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Chained Divinity

I think the problem with most media is the violence happens for no reason, like in Spartacus and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.
Like you said violence without consequence is useless for the story. When there is no tension or fear for the character's well being there is no use for such violence.
Excessive violence makes nothing more or less scary (actually imagining how it happens it's more effective than seeing it in some cases).

The thing about Danny is that the scenes where her brother shows her around and her first sex scenes are meant to tell us that she's just a scared child with no idea what to do. She has no home, her only family is a fucking ass and when she finally has pleasure with sex, it's her transition from a scared lamb to a woman capable of ruling a strong tribe.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

IamIcarus said:


> Now for the love of god. Take my previous advice, read the damn posts properly and refrain from collecting your bales of hay and building your proverbial strawman so you can set your fire breathing dragons on it.


What straw men have I built? You agreed to everything I said about Daenerys, previously of course calling that too a terrible case of logical fallacy. You didn't agree to what I said about Ros, however, you admitted not knowing the context because you don't even follow the show (that alone discredits everything you write), and don't know that she was a spy of high rank, working among advisors of the king. Not ''the whore was a whore.''


It is clear that you haven't noticed the context of anything at all, not just Daenerys and Ros. The whores are seen with almost exclusively Lannisters and their men who are portrayed as hopeless hedonists, self-centered and perverted - that is why the whores are there, naked, several on one man, shot with crossbows and with their tits out. To make it very obvious to everyone that Lannisters aren't ascetic, respectful, ethical people and some are capable of sickening cruelty. Starks don't have endless sex scenes with whores, nor do Greyjoys or Targaryens or anyone else. In their case brothels, sex with daughters and everything else you dislike is only alluded to, because they are portrayed as moderate people and allusion has very moderate power. The naked women aren't there to send you a message about women in real life, they are there as a part of fiction, to send you an unmissable message about the Lannister men.


If you don't get the context of the events portrayed, admit not being interested in the plot, and even worse - admit not following the show at all - then you cannot understand the event or the show, and thus cannot say anything about the ideology, morality or integrity of the show. That is how with one example I manage to discredit your whole post. You have a very naive and crude approach, that is the whole point. You instruct me to be rational and logical, yet you don't even know the ABC of logic, relation between a part and the whole. All you have is a pet ideology and all you do is interpret everything you see through this lense. It seems you didn't manage to impress anyone at all.


----------



## jcatenaci (Mar 28, 2014)

IamIcarus said:


> Sure. The greeks were a very well balanced and knowledgeable society. The greeks were known for their philosophy and valued truth aboe everything else. As such they would have realised the true nature of a human - man or woman. And would have seen that beauty and desire lies not just only in the body but in the soul/mind. They would have seen beauty as merely a constituient to the whole of a person.
> 
> In our contemporaty society the body of someone is overly sexualised. To the extent that it is only the body that is cared about. It would be the truth to say that most people watch or have watched porn. A large amount watch it on a regular basis. And in porn it is merely the body of one which is desired and fetishised. It is sexualised. It is no longer beauty but eroticism in the bad sense.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I don't know. It always seemed to me that the real difference between the Greco/Roman and modern interpretations of sex was the former was simply more comfortable with it as a natural part of life. As such, their portrayals were done in the same style as their other art. The fault with us would be that we're *less* comfortable with sex and nudity which may be why porn is pushed to the sidelines of culture despite the fact that a majority of Americans probably see it at least a few times a year if not far more.

So, what is the evidence for the difference in how our 2 cultures portray sexuality other than our technology allowing us to capture far greater detail? Also, how does GoT throwing nudity around left and right do harm to our society in any way rather than just appear to be pandering to people who want to see "bewbs?" I'm curious.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

> What straw men have I built? You agreed to everything I said about Daenerys, previously of course calling that too a terrible case of logical fallacy


*Right here your first statement is a prime example of the strawman fallacy*

I did not say that everything you stated was a logical fallacy. sigh. what i did say was...



> Daenyres's brother even referred to her as something akin to a fucktoy which is what i specifically said she was being sold as..


*You had said
*



> Did you miss that part where ''strongest'' female protagonist is told to stop having sex as a slave, and after that we never again see her naked? Where her brother is portrayed as a power obsessed fool, who has no respect for anyone at all? You see Daenerys as a mere fucktoy, of course, and simply because for a moment she had no clothes on.


and



> But she was intended to become a Khaleesi since the beginning, and wasn't ''sold to become a fucktoy'' as you claim


If you had taken my advice and read my post carefully, you would or should, have realised that i said that she was sold to become a fucktoy. She was not intended by the 'seller' to become Khaleesi. She was seen as soley a means to an end. That is where your fallacy lies. You have created a strawman fallacy...ironically..*in the first sentence where you claim not to have built any, you must be a comedian or something.* I had merely stated that singular logical fallacy, i never, not even slightly discredited the entirety of what you have said to be a logical fallacy.



> You didn't agree to what I said about Ros, however, you admitted not knowing the context because you don't even follow the show (that alone discredits everything you write), and don't know that she was a spy of high rank, working among advisors of the king. Not ''the whore was a whore.''


Aha...not exactly, i follow the show enough to see what is in it but i don't follow it fanatically. Thank you giving me the context of the situation. I do not feel that it is necessary to know every single detail of the show because, quite frankly, there a are a multitude of reinforcements to choose from.



> it is clear that you haven't noticed the context of anything at all, not just Daenerys and Ros. The whores are seen with almost exclusively Lannisters and their men who are portrayed as hopeless hedonists, self-centered and perverted - that is why the whores are there, naked, several on one man, shot with crossbows and with their tits out. To make it very obvious to everyone that Lannisters aren't ascetic, respectful, ethical people and some are capable of sickening cruelty. Starks don't have endless sex scenes with whores, nor do Greyjoys or Targaryens or anyone else. In their case brothels, sex with daughters and everything else you dislike is only alluded to, because they are portrayed as moderate people and allusion has very moderate power. The naked women aren't there to send you a message about women in real life, they are there as a part of fiction, to send you an unmissable message about the Lannister men.


Tyrion Lannister is seen to be one of the most ethical and righteous people in the entire series and yet he is amongst the most virile and depraved and is shown to be with whores and is alluded to have been with whores numerous times. You as a follower of the show, should also know that there are not just nude scenes at a brothel there are various occasions where they are there, seemingly without reason. You say that allusion has moderate power and you must show things in their detail but doing such a thing has risks. Doing such a thing can leave an impression on the uncompetent, can be a gateway, can be a supplement in feeding their carnal desires. It appeals to the publics base natures, gives very little in return to the storyline when allusion would have done the same thing. In an allusion, yes, we see Jamie kissing his sister and they fall to the floor we think, 'oh my god thats fucked up' and it cuts to another scene, not showing the entirety of the act. Game of Thrones has an immense following, I go to a school that is hooked on it, a school where adolsecents are more impressionable than *real adults* and most of the adults i know have undeveloped minds. So.. is that allusion really worth it? So..what you're saying is that if we see Jamie Lannister actually having sex with his sister, or if we see the the visible-tittied whore stuck to a wall, instead of the allusion, it would make an IMMENSE difference to how we see the Lannisters. An IMMENSE difference worth the repercussions of such a thing.
Oh my god. you make complete sense. what a genius.



> If you don't get the context of the events portrayed, admit not being interested in the plot, and even worse - admit not following the show at all - then you cannot understand the event or the show, and thus cannot say anything about the ideology, morality or integrity of the show.


I do follow the show, but i dont REALLY follow the show, not to the extent that some people do giving a damn about every single sigil or family member. And I am qualified to comment on the ideology, morality and integrity of the show because as long as my arguments are valid, reasonable, i have conviction and i follow the show not fanatically that is all that is necessary.



> That is how with one example I manage to discredit your whole post. You have a very naive and crude approach, that is the whole point. You instruct me to be rational and logical, yet you don't even know the ABC of logic, relation between a part and the whole. All you have is a pet ideology and all you do is interpret everything you see through this lense. It seems you didn't manage to impress anyone at all.


You cannot simply discredit a whole post based on me "not really following a show" what does that even mean to you? It means to me not salivating and jerking off over every aspect of the show and guessing what type of MBTI (whatever the hell its called) the characters are. 

I claim that being logical, reading carefully and not being selective in what you choose to respond is much more important than knowing every single detail of this show. In fact I believe being irrational discredits what you write more so than being a nerd, recalling the minor aspects of every event.



> You have a very naive and crude approach, that is the whole point. You instruct me to be rational and logical, yet you don't even know the ABC of logic, relation between a part and the whole. All you have is a pet ideology and all you do is interpret everything you see through this lense. It seems you didn't manage to impress anyone at all.


Well, you can just refer to the last paragraph. And i may just add that I do not mean to impress anyone, it seems to me that that is more your kind of territory. I merely mean to argue, get to the truth and concede when i am wrong. I mean to be rational and not spew pseudo-rhetorical crap which might win you an Emmy, if i wanted that I would go talk to some fake feminists shouting at every male that walks past - I see a ton of those at my school.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

IamIcarus said:


> If you had taken my advice and read my post carefully, you would or should, have realised that i said that she was sold to become a fucktoy. She was not intended by the 'seller' to become Khaleesi. She was seen as soley a means to an end. That is where your fallacy lies. You have created a strawman fallacy...ironically..*in the first sentence where you claim not to have built any, you must be a comedian or something.* I had merely stated that singular logical fallacy, i never, not even slightly discredited the entirety of what you have said to be a logical fallacy.


And who cares what the _seller_ intended, exactly? The _seller_ died horribly early in and none of his wishes are being followed. 

What is _happening_ is that Daenerys, far from being a fucktoy, is attacking and running cities. To some degree that's the result of having better luck than everyone else, but that's really not a particularly good example of _sexism_. 

Now Nightchill made a (hellaciously stupid) point earlier about her victories coming from sex, but I don't buy that. I know in the books she _never_ has sex with Ser Jorah, and the people that she does have sex with, she does so with after showing her cleverness and strength in battle. 




> Tyrion Lannister is seen to be one of the most ethical and righteous people in the entire series and yet he is amongst the most virile and depraved and is shown to be with whores and is alluded to have been with whores numerous times. You as a follower of the show, should also know that there are not just nude scenes at a brothel there are various occasions where they are there, seemingly without reason. You say that allusion has moderate power and you must show things in their detail but doing such a thing has risks. Doing such a thing can leave an impression on the uncompetent, can be a gateway, can be a supplement in feeding their carnal desires. It appeals to the publics base natures, gives very little in return to the storyline when allusion would have done the same thing. In an allusion, yes, we see Jamie kissing his sister and they fall to the floor we think, 'oh my god thats fucked up' and it cuts to another scene, not showing the entirety of the act. Game of Thrones has an immense following, I go to a school that is hooked on it, a school where adolsecents are more impressionable than *real adults* and most of the adults i know have undeveloped minds. So.. is that allusion really worth it? So..what you're saying is that if we see Jamie Lannister actually having sex with his sister, or if we see the the visible-tittied whore stuck to a wall, instead of the allusion, it would make an IMMENSE difference to how we see the Lannisters. An IMMENSE difference worth the repercussions of such a thing.
> Oh my god. you make complete sense. what a genius.


Meanwhile, what _you_ are saying is that the "impressionable minds" in question somehow _wouldn't_ get the picture as deeply upon seeing a kiss, which I find to be...ridiculous, honestly. 

As for Tyrion, he's portrayed as more righteous than many others, but not really as _righteous_, and at least in the books he treats whores with a modicum of respect not seen by some others. He'll make moves to protect them, for example, or converse with one as a human being. In fact, I would argue that Tyrion's righteousness, such that it is, is portrayed incredibly often in how he regards the whores he interacts with as human beings, although in Shae's case there's a heavy dose of the bad kind of white-knighting here.

This might not be shown in the show, though.


----------



## Annwuzhere (Jul 23, 2013)

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree with you any more.



> Another disturbing aspect of Game of Thrones is the fact that it has seemingly no interest in moralistic righteousness. You may claim that the dangerous, amoral lives of the people living in the land of Valeria are simply the cold hard facts of reality. But when you see the good and virtuous die at the hand of the incestuous and immoral without repercussions it leaves the wrong impression on its viewers. It gives its viewers the suggestion that you can get away with immoral acts without reprimand. It shapes our unconscious perceptions of reality. There is a reason why the depraved protagonists in all the great books end up dead or in horrid circumstances. Think of Dorian Gray who ends up more soulless monster than human, or the pedophile in Lolita who ends up losing everything and is imprisoned. These are the consequences of one who indulges in immorality - at least in reality.


I wouldn't say A Song of Ice and Fire glorifies amorality. It simply reflects real life, as there are many injustices in real life and unfortunately evil often defeats good. For example, when Joffrey killed Ned, even though it happened, it was an injustice and presented as such.



> Pornography has been a massive contributor to the objectification of women. Objectification is often not a conscious action. It is unconscious because it frames our reality, it gives us lenses through which women are seen as fuck toys and nothing more. Game of Thrones indulges in that, it imposes those lenses into our eyes, but very subtly, imperceptibly - if you don't know what to look for. Girls are getting skewered with crossbows by the product of an incestuous relationship, the "strongest" female protagonist is threatened to be sold off as a fucktoy and is often naked, females are constantly shown in positions of unrestrained debauchery, there is a man with sex slave daughters and women are even talked about as if they were trophies or walking pieces of tasty meat.


Again, just because an author writes something doesn't mean they're condoning it. You have to remember that Westeros is a very patriarchal society so women's roles are often limited by the powers that be. If anything, I'd say the series is pretty damn feminist. Look at Daenerys, Arya, Brienne and even Cersei. (and many, many more) They are powerful women who manage to succeed despite the limitations imposed on them by society. If you want to read a really misogynistic fantasy book, read the Gor series or The Fifth Sorceress. 

I happen to think George RR Martin has created one of the most realistic and compelling settings in the fantasy genre and that includes looking into very real topics such as violence, sex and various forms of prejudice.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

I agree with you for the most part, but...



Annwuzhere said:


> Again, just because an author writes something doesn't mean they're condoning it. You have to remember that Westeros is a very patriarchal society so women's roles are often limited by the powers that be. If anything, I'd say the series is pretty damn feminist. Look at Daenerys, Arya, Brienne and even Cersei. (and many, many more) They are powerful women who manage to succeed despite the limitations imposed on them by society. If you want to read a really misogynistic fantasy book, read the Gor series or The Fifth Sorceress.


...you're going to have to do a lot more to convince me that Cersei breaks with stereotypes at all (I hate the phrase "strong female character" because it suggests that incredibly one-dimensional female characters are well-written so long as the one dimension is power). She fits the evil queen archetype to a T. XD


----------



## Annwuzhere (Jul 23, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> ...you're going to have to do a lot more to convince me that Cersei breaks with stereotypes at all (I hate the phrase "strong female character" because it suggests that incredibly one-dimensional female characters are well-written so long as the one dimension is power). She fits the evil queen archetype to a T. XD


That's what makes the women in the series so great. They are three-dimensional with their own flaws and strengths. That's why I actually like Sansa as a character, even if so many people hate her. She's flawed but her character is developing, that's for sure.

I guess I just always had a thing for female villains XD
In my opinion, you have to have at least some strength of character to be a villain.


----------



## jcatenaci (Mar 28, 2014)

Let me just add that the fanbase's explosive, negative reaction to the rape scene in this week's episode makes this whole conversation, moot. The fans of the show were not psychologically warped by the show, and there is a limit to what you could put in the show before they push back. So yeah... You can stop bitching now.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

http://io9.com/george-r-r-martin-responds-to-that-controversial-game-1565762209


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

jcatenaci said:


> Hmm, I don't know. It always seemed to me that the real difference between the Greco/Roman and modern interpretations of sex was the former was simply more comfortable with it as a natural part of life. As such, their portrayals were done in the same style as their other art. The fault with us would be that we're *less* comfortable with sex and nudity which may be why porn is pushed to the sidelines of culture despite the fact that a majority of Americans probably see it at least a few times a year if not far more.
> 
> So, what is the evidence for the difference in how our 2 cultures portray sexuality other than our technology allowing us to capture far greater detail? Also, how does GoT throwing nudity around left and right do harm to our society in any way rather than just appear to be pandering to people who want to see "bewbs?" I'm curious.


The question should be asked of why we are less comfortable with nudity now. Just think about that for a moment. That comment about the majority of americans...i believe that to be extremely naive.

For the rest of your question you will have to refer to my other posts if you are so inclined to know the answer. For i am tireeeed of writing the same shit.


Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

IamIcarus said:


> The question should be asked of why we are less comfortable with nudity now. Just think about that for a moment.


Why do you assume the reason is a good one?



> That comment about the majority of americans...i believe that to be extremely naive.


I'm not entirely certain the number of Americans that use it is relevant. For all we know, that could just be a result of people viewing it as shameful. Or just straight-up lack of interest (I personally don't find porn all that exciting, actually. For whatever reason I prefer sexualized depictions of people that are actually, well...people. :tongue.


----------



## IamIcarus (Apr 7, 2014)

Chained Divinity said:


> Why do you assume the reason is a good one?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely certain the number of Americans that use it is relevant. For all we know, that could just be a result of people viewing it as shameful. Or just straight-up lack of interest (I personally don't find porn all that exciting, actually. For whatever reason I prefer sexualized depictions of people that are actually, well...people. :tongue.


Im not assuming it is a good one. What makes you say i have?

It s relevant. If the majority view it often then it will be seen as normal in our society. In fact it seems that porn depicted in film and tv shows treat it as normal.. further encouraging its normality in a vicious circle. 

I remember a line from the Republic by Plato which stated that any depiction of human sexuality which had no other purpose besides to be lusted after should not be viewed by any human or child. So theres another link between greek culture and our societies perception of porn.



Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcatenaci (Mar 28, 2014)

IamIcarus said:


> The question should be asked of why we are less comfortable with nudity now. Just think about that for a moment. That comment about the majority of americans...i believe that to be extremely naive.


First, you are aware of the lingering effects of Puritanism and the long running social conservative disposition of American culture, aren't you? That's one of the greatest reasons why American culture has a bizarre, hypocritical relationship with sexuality. I didn't think that needed mentioning, but since you bring it up, well there you go. The Greeks didn't have such aversion, and hell neither did much of medieval Europe, which I actually find pretty funny.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

jcatenaci said:


> First, you are aware of the lingering effects of Puritanism and the long running social conservative disposition of American culture, aren't you? That's one of the greatest reasons why American culture has a bizarre, hypocritical relationship with sexuality. I didn't think that needed mentioning, but since you bring it up, well there you go. The Greeks didn't have such aversion, and hell neither did much of medieval Europe, which I actually find pretty funny.


What's wrong with being a hypocritical Puritan? Although actually, the Puritans didn't have this attitude either. This attitude is actually a legacy of the first wave of feminism, the Christian feminism that was behind Prohibition and perfect families and cleaning up the Wild West in America. Today it isn't recognized as such, but that's where it comes from. 

But yeah. I think hypocrisy and artificially created shame and inhibitions are good for us, and work just fine. There's no reason for people in warm climates to wear clothes at all, but I think I'm fine with the artificial inhibitions that keep society clothed. Lots of artificial stuff works really well, like the iPhone. Or government... In a state of nature, the strongest person is free to take stuff from the weakest person, but I think the artificial protections afforded the weak also help things work...

Things seem to work here just as well as Europe, or even better since our fertility rate is around replacement rate and their rate is not, so why should we spend any energy trying to be like France? Let's not fix a working system.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Kollenhausen said:


> What's wrong with being a hypocritical Puritan? Although actually, the Puritans didn't have this attitude either. This attitude is actually a legacy of the first wave of feminism, the Christian feminism that was behind Prohibition and perfect families and cleaning up the Wild West in America. Today it isn't recognized as such, but that's where it comes from.
> 
> But yeah. I think hypocrisy and artificially created shame and inhibitions are good for us, and work just fine. There's no reason for people in warm climates to wear clothes at all, but I think I'm fine with the artificial inhibitions that keep society clothed. Lots of artificial stuff works really well, like the iPhone. Or government... In a state of nature, the strongest person is free to take stuff from the weakest person, but I think the artificial protections afforded the weak also help things work...
> 
> Things seem to work here just as well as Europe, or even better since our fertility rate is around replacement rate and their rate is not, so why should we spend any energy trying to be like France? Let's not fix a working system.


Puritan closed down theatres in England. Shakespeare was almost out of job because of them.

We do wear clothes in warm climates to protect ourselves from the strong sun, otherwise our skin will be burned. Believe me. I live in a country with a very harsh Summer and a cold dry Winter.
We don't have fur any more, according to some theories we'll lose all hair with time, and we need clothes to prevent ourselves from dying, especially during the winter.
Then again there are some animals who work in teams and help the weakest ones... It depends on the animals, they don't all work in the same way.

You can't be like France because you don't have their culture or history. It's that simple.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

Just finished the books released thus far today. Now, that series, joins the waiting list, next to Half Life 3, and taking the spot that the Inheritance cycle (Eragon, etc,) once filled.

G.R.R. Martin better deliver these books quicker than Valve & Mr. Paolini


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I had expected there to be a debate about Cersei and Jaime and whether or not what he did was considered rape.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Ace Face said:


> I had expected there to be a debate about Cersei and Jaime and whether or not what he did was considered rape.


*spoilers*









um yep. definitely. and the context was _fucking_ horrendous, considering the connections between everyone in the room at the time...


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Aya the Whaler said:


> Puritan closed down theatres in England. Shakespeare was almost out of job because of them.


Those were the _English_ Puritans, if Puritans were responsible at all. The American Puritans are related, but different.

Also, they ceased to be a political force hundreds of years ago; it's like saying that the European colonial era was caused by the tradition of knightly jousting in Medieval Europe. Is it more plausible to attribute our attitudes to a broad movement that passed laws and amended the Constitution in the U.S., or to attribute them to a few religious communists who were finished centuries ago?



Aya the Whaler said:


> We do wear clothes in warm climates to protect ourselves from the strong sun, otherwise our skin will be burned. Believe me. I live in a country with a very harsh Summer and a cold dry Winter.


There are many traditional cultures that do not wear clothes, who are forced to by society when they gain 'civilization'. This shows that there are many climates where clothes are not necessary at least part of the time. Nevertheless, civilization brings clothes.



Aya the Whaler said:


> We don't have fur any more, according to some theories we'll lose all hair with time, and we need clothes to prevent ourselves from dying, especially during the winter.
> Then again there are some animals who work in teams and help the weakest ones... It depends on the animals, they don't all work in the same way.


There's nothing that proves they behave that way naturally. It could be that they have learned organization through observation of human activity. 



Aya the Whaler said:


> You can't be like France because you don't have their culture or history. It's that simple.


Exactly. That's why we should embrace hypocrisy. It's the American legacy.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

@Kollenhausen

Dude, I'm European. I'm not embracing any of your American hypocrisy.


----------

