I know it's been done to death but Game of Thrones

[ASAS]

Please consider this a potential trigger warning if pregnant...

Stopped watching when I was pregnant because they killed a baby. My DS is now 4. It's on in the background while I potter about but I've just noticed a pregnant woman being stabbed in the stomach. Has it been 4 years of this level of violence? How does this even manage to get on TV?

If a woman submits to sex because its her duty and she knows her husband can force sex (and rape is viewed as impossible in marriage as its the husbands right) then that isn't consensual is it?

Yep, consensual was not the correct word.
In the book (from memory), he realises she is scared on their wedding night and leaves her alone. Eventually they have sex when she has got to know him a bit and she approaches him.
It may still be non-consensual because there is threat of force (although in the book he isn't immediately threatening anything) and because she's under-age.
In the TV series, it's forced, rough sex against her wishes.
They come across very differently, the TV version was much more violent and tough.

The fact she's about 12 isn't a factor then in consent, MrNoseybonk?

I've already said consensual was the wrong choice of word.
My point was the same scene was played out completely differently in the book to the TV series: no force, no crying, no aggressiveness in the books, all of these in the TV scene.

Also, the Cersei rape scene, which in the books was Cersei doing the rape (well, forced sex) completely changed for TV.

My point was the same scene was played out completely differently in the book to the TV series: no force, no crying, no aggressiveness in the books, all of these in the TV scene.

There could actually be a good reason for that: She was aged up for the TV series, and maybe the writers wanted the viewers to understand that this was rape, so they decided to make it a bit more of a typical rape.

(I don't actually think that was the reason, I think the writers thought the original scene was consensual and just wanted to add another rape. But separated from context, it is not necessarily a bad decision. You can't show the victim's feelings as good on TV as you can describe them in a novel, and if you want every last idiot to understand that it is rape ...)

@slugs: The book series is plenty misogynist, though, and I cannot think of any instance of exploring societal norms in there ... breaking taboos that aren't actually that taboo, perhaps, but otherwise it is pretty standard.

I'm not sure I care whether it's depicted differently in the book to the TV. Neither are great are they? Book: 12 yr old benevolently let off her duties until she woos the adult (no grooming there then) or TV: adult woman graphically raped on her wedding night. Joys. The choice we have .

I think violence on TV is a feminist issue regardless of who is the victim. It is invariably male violence and that is one thing feminists are striving towards reducing/eliminating. But even if it is women being violent, that doesn't suddenly not make it a feminist issue. Women being as violent as men is not really what we are striving for. Violence breeds violence.

Personally, removing gratuitous violence, violence dressed up as sexy or triumphant or even casual would be a good thing. If violence is going to be depicted how about from the perspective of the victim rather than the perpetrator as it so often is?

Completely gratuitous, just hanging around - I think it's a step towards equality done like that, but did find it a bit of a surprise (and my first thought was that it was to justify having the women naked)

War and Peace was another, and I did think that's probably Andrew Davies's writing rather than Tolstoy's.

I think it is about justifying female nudity - you can't complain, because we've put in men, too. But it is gratuitous - Aidan Turner in Poldark, Aidan Turner even more so in that Agatha Christie thing that was on over Christmas, the lingering shot over the torso of the bloke who shagged Marcella in last night's episode. I'm not against nudity, if it's relevant - but a lot of these shots are either entirely unnecessary or the angle, lighting and duration of the shot is unnecessary. Just because they do that with naked women, it doesn't make it any less gratuitous. I know that there's loads of excitement in social media and letching over Poldark etc, and it does help ratings - but I don't think reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator is the sort of equality I want. I don't want gratuitous, objectifying male nudity any more than I want gratuitous, objectifying female nudity.

I think I'd be quite mortal playing this. Would that be 2 drinks for boobs?

I don't want gratuitous, objectifying male nudity any more than I want gratuitous, objectifying female nudity.

Interesting. I'm not questioning why you as an individual don't like it - we are all different. But do you think it should be banned? Is it harmful to lust after someone you don't know? All the fuss over Tom Hiddlestone's arse recently was hilarious. It seems that an awful lot of people like it, regardless of gender.

It's not harmful to lust after someone you don't know, and having someone in mind to feed daydreams on dull days is no bad thing. But - you can establish someone isn't wearing clothes (which may well be pertinent to the story) without slowly panning along the body, lingering over every muscled contour. I don't see that that is very different from panning slowly up a dead woman's body (except for the man is alive, usually, which is decidedly better than the visual necrophilia some camerawork seems to involve.)

I don't know, maybe I'm just hopelessly out of touch, (I had to google Tom Hiddlestone recently to see who everyone was making a fuss about,) but it makes me uncomfortable. I think some of it is because it's so clearly gratuitous, rather than being through the eye of one of the characters, which might explain why they're behaving the way they are.

I adore Game of thrones, the books and TV show, it is incredibly violent but there is a lot of male nudity, it's not disproportionately female.
Not all the men are are misogynist rapists either, the hound may be a vicious killer but he saves Sansa from rape and he protects Arya totally.
Jon Snow treats women as equals and one of my favourite scenes has Sam saying that he can't steal Gilly as she is a person not an object.
There is female strength everywhere in GOT, the Tyrells, Danerys and Misandei, Sansa, Arya, the wildling women are portrayed as fearless warriors, Meera and Osha are protectors, Yara Greyjoy is a military leader.

Don't get me started on the wildling women. Don't. Two words: Rape Culture.

@Ebearhug: Your complaint reminds me of this comic (NSFW, erotic bathing): oglaf.com/rivulets/

The movie Maleficent had male nudity. I didn't mind that - they just established that he's naked and, it being a movie for children, kept the camera above the waist, and that was it. (Not that it kept women from lusting after the character, but I think that was more due to the shirt he wore later on. When he wasn't covered in mud anymore.)

"Not all men are misogynist rapists either..." Well there's a relief .

I know you didn't mean it that way PreviouslyMal but it's still a pretty low bar!

I haven't seen Maleficent. I haven't seen oglaf before, either, but I laughed.

I've watched a fair few of them, but I don't remember seeing a penis yet - perhaps the Reek torture?

In series one you see a penis but not in a sex scene. The man who tries to poison Danny is tied naked to a wagon.

But I don't think we see one again. Even when the older priest is doing a walk of shame we only see him from the back.

Yes, when I said equality I didn't mean a good equality.

I've got nothing against nudity at all, in some scenes it's totally relevant, but in plenty of others people are naked for the visuals, not because it brings anything to the story.

I'm having trouble articulating quite what the difference is - to go back to Poldark, him taking his shirt off to reap - normal, part of the story, lingering == fan service.

Same with female nudity - if it's relevant to the story, fine. If it's that they dedicate 10 minutes to her getting undressed for a bath, then it's gratuitous.

I think the reason I feel uncomfortable with gratuitous nudity is that I'm watching a particular show for a plot, for a story, and find these scenes jarring. If I was watching something else, where I was expecting it (I can't think of what now as it happens) then it would be expected.

If we're penis- spotting, we definitely see Theon's penis early on. (well before the Reek stuff)

It's horrible but it's a reflection of the sort of era it is set in.

What sort of era is that, then? It's fantasy! I agree with vestal - GRRM made choices while he was writing. He's not constrained into depicting rape and violence - he chose to.

to go back to Poldark, him taking his shirt off to reap - normal, part of the story, lingering == fan service.

I don't reckon many, if any, would have taken a shirt off to reap - a shirt protects you against the sun. Sunburn would make it difficult to work. But not entirely the point.

I did read someone's very picky critique of Poldark's reaping. Apparently it was poor technique in many ways, including the shirtlessness.

And it was gratuitous male nudity. But two things about it. One, we spent a lot of time being shown his whole body, and less of close-ups, whereas the balance with women's bodies is often the opposite (they're shown as a collection of pieces to lust over). And two, nothing truly terrible happens to Poldark purely because he had the front to get his shirt off and get sexy and sweaty. He's not punished for having a sexy body.

what sort of era is that then? It's fantasy!

Yes but it's quite obviously based on a medieval time.

I wish we had seen more of Drogo before he died. A lot more . Ah well, there's always Aquaman

'A medieval time' could mean anywhere in a millenium, and still wouldn't explain why GRRM wrote a society which appears to have no laws against rape, would it?

ah, sorry spoilers! 😓