ramzesfics
reblogged your post and added:
[….] where did the idea of having the option
to safely say “no” go? Someone thinks that Elia actually could safely
say “no” to the man who decided that this was the only night he had to
fuck her in? (Remember, this night was very important to him, else he
would have tried again before and after.) But this possibility isn’t
even mentioned. The entire
awfulness of the situation is waved away with a tentative, “MAY be
utterly callous… it does interfere with her consent”… Makes me wonder
where the callousness is. If Elia was this willing, Rhaegar is not
callous at all. It was her choice, after all. Her risk to take.
Earth to
fandom: a consent interfered with is not a consent freely given.
Amazing, I know, but this is a concept that doesn’t only apply to cutely
wilful wolf-blooded girls of fifteen, it also applies to until recently
bedridden Dornish princesses who almost certainly knew that waiting for
a mere month or two vastly improved their chances of going through
pregnancy successfully but had prophecy obsessed husbands. For the
record, I also wouldn’t call Rhaegar a rapist. Elia most certainly
thought it was her wifely duty. But it sure as hell falls under the
definition of “a little rapey”, like many things in GRRM’s world.
I’ll choose to ignore the blatant hostile and condescending tone you use
throughout your reply in favor of addressing your points. But perhaps
next time you might think of toning that down. Your points can be easily
made without talking down to me
like that, and less hostility makes for a more productive discussion instead of a shouting match.
Anyway.
I clearly said that Elia’s consent is interfered with. I clearly said that it isn’t a healthy situation. My point is that calling it rape, or a bit rapey which is essentially the same thing, puts Rhaegar as the perpetrator and the one responsible for that which I don’t agree with. The problem with Elia’s consent, in my interpretation, is that the sociopolitical culture of Westeros inherently undermines free consent. That stands true for most Westerosi marriages. It’s a society whose politics and power structure is maintained through arranged marriage which doesn’t really bother with clear and free consent. It commodifies highborn individuals, especially women, as pawns to be used to gain alliances, political power, status, economic privileges, etc. It engenders a significant power disparity between genders which translates to men having inordinate power over their wives, which is then exacerbated by the societal pressure it places women under by holding them to a rigid structure of conduct. Society says that providing sex to their husbands is a duty, that bearing and rearing children is a duty, that giving access to their very bodies is. a. duty. On top of that, it makes it that their political legacy and power is intrinsically tied to their children. Outside of ruling ladies, noble women maintain power through their children so having children seizes to be only a thing they are taught is their duty, and quite literally becomes a way of securing the mother’s place. In a society where women are subject to men’s power and whims, that is an important objective.
All that makes consent a mess. That’s what the make-up of Westerosi society does; it removes true sexual agency from people. That stands especially true for women, particularly those in certain ranks where providing children becomes a political obligation. That absolutely interferes with consent so I can see where it can be called rape. My problem comes from the fact that we’d be basically calling pretty much every marriage in Westeros rape that way, because consent is interfered with everywhere. So is Ned the same as Robert? Is Stannis the same as Aerys? Is the consent issues the same? I can’t say that. Which is why I draw a line between “yes, there is an issue with consent here but that doesn’t makes this person a rapist” and “someone is clearly and deliberately ignoring consent and/or creating a situation where consent can’t be given”. Rhaegar/Elia are in the first category, Rhaegar/Lyanna in the second. I hesitate to draw parallels between them, and it’s not because Lyanna is white and Elia isn’t.
It’s because that while I think that Elia’s consent is interfered with because she is under pressure; this pressure didn’t necessarily come from Rhaegar’s person. You have a valid point in criticizing me for not allowing a margin of error because yes, it is possible that Rhaegar himself pressured Elia because there was a comet in the sky this specific night (though I’m not sure where your confidence that this was the only night of intercourse between Rhaegar and Elia comes from). My interpretation differs, partly because I don’t see any instance where Martin hints that the situation isn’t what it appears to be, partly because I’m almost certain that this is an example of his inability to math and that he just didn’t notice that having Elia bedridden for six months after Rhaenys’ birth but having Rhaenys and Aegon born in two successive years when Rhaenys couldn’t have been possibly born any earlier than late 280 leaves a very small window for Aegon’s conception. The author’s doylist math challenges should not overwhelm in-universe explanations but it lends a useful frame in light of the lack of additional evidence. So my point is that while Elia’s consent is interfered with, it’s not necessarily Rhaegar who caused that interference and thus should be blamed for it. Which the original ask does.
In terms of the comparison between Elia and Lyanna, I don’t parallel them because their ability to consent isn’t the same. On account of age alone, there is a whole lot of difference to what Elia could hypothetically consent to as a 25-year-old and what Lyanna could consent to as a 14-year-old. Elia can consent to sex with Rhaegar, Lyanna can not. It is not possible. The situation is drastically different as well; it’s possible that Rhaegar pressured Elia but it’s just as possible that Elia agreed willingly (and I hear what you say about the dangers this could pose to her fertility and don’t disagree. But Martin has eschewed that logic way too many times for me not to see this as a solid possibility.) Rhaegar held power over both Elia and Lyanna that could be used to coerce, that’s true, but Elia’s ability to say yes to her husband with whom she has a comparable maturity level and rank, in their home, with a loyal retinue in the vicinity is starkly different from Lyanna’s ability to say yes when she has none of that. That does not mean that Elia couldn’t be coerced, but the two situations are not comparable. In Lyanna’s case, Rhaegar created the situation that prevented Lyanna’s consent to be valid or free. He deliberately perpetuated a chain of events that left her at a disadvantage, isolated and completely vulnerable to the crown prince and three loyal Kingsguard.
Rhaegar himself unambiguously interfered with Lyanna’s consent.
The difference here is that there is a possibility for Elia to consent, but that isn’t true for Lyanna.
Finally,
I admit I’m a bit confused. You say that you also wouldn’t call Rhaegar a
rapist for this. You concur that Elia probably thought it was her
wifely duty. So the issue seems to be that you think I brushed away the
awfulness of the situation. Except…. do I need to point out that a
woman feeling it’s her duty to provide children for her husband or to
secure herself is fucked up? Sometimes I do spell it out. But sometimes I
rely on the fact that people reading don’t need me to tell them that’s
not right. I acknowledge that it’s not a healthy situation. I
acknowledge that Elia’s consent is suspect. There are consent issues but I
don’t call it rape because I blame Westerosi mores that wreaks havoc with consent on the best of days. So I haven’t ignored the awfulness
of the situation as much as that you think my word choice makes it too tentative. But at the same time you refer to me saying “Elia might”
in my post as “a long post why this woman had almost
certainly decided it was the best
idea ever, her saving grace!”. Okay?