#asoiaf sexuality

[horizon-verizon]

The randomness of Alicole suddenly having nonstop sex makes sense when you remember these writers want to put a stop to Rhaenicent.

They were all for queerbaiting but there was no way in hell they were actually going to make any of their leads queer even if George's books suggest Rhaenyra's bisexuality.

So the very first scene of Alicent is her getting eaten out by Cole, just to remind the audience she's straight and is sexually attracted to man not her stepdaughter.

This has less to do with "is this realistic for the characters?" and more "will this put an end to fan specualtion about the character's sexuality?".

Never considered this. Could be both simultaneously: to make Alicent is straight thing obvious by the frequency of alicole's sex AND the existence of the ship itself becoming HotD canon bc of Alicent given something more to do. But you make great points, anon.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Is there anything support the populat interpretation that old valriya and valryians in general are more feminist, and progressive than the rest in Asoiaf?

Anon, thank you! I've been wanting to address this for awhile, so I'm going to actually answer this really fully, with as many receipts as I can provide (this ended up being more of an essay than I intended, but hopefully it helps)

I think there's in fact plenty of evidence to suggest that Valyria and the Valyrians in general were anything but progressive. Valyria was an expansive empire with a robust slave trade that practiced incest based on the idea of blood supremacy/blood purity. All of these things are absolutely antithetical to progressivism. There is no way any empire practicing slavery can ever be called progressive. Now, the Targaryens of Dragonstone have since given up the practice of slavery, but they certainly still believe in the supremacy of Valyrian blood.

And I'll see the argument, well what's wrong with believing your blood is special if your blood really is special and magic? Which is just-- if anyone catches themselves thinking this, and you sincerely believe that GRRM intended to create a magically superior master race of hot blondes who deserve to rule over all other backwards races by virtue of their superior breeding which is reinforced through brother-sister incest, and you've convinced yourself this represents progressive values, then you might want to step away from the computer for a bit and do a bit of self reflection.

And remember-- what is special about this special blood? It gives the bearers the ability to wield sentient weapons of mass destruction. It's also likely, according to the most popular theories, the result of blood magic involving human sacrifice. So there is a terrible price to pay for this so-called supremacy. Would any of us line up to be sacrificed to the Fourteen Flames so that the Valyrians can have nukes?

And if you are tempted by the idea that a woman who rides a dragon must inherently have some sort of power-- that is true. A woman who rides a dragon is more powerful than a woman who does not ride a dragon, and in some cases, more powerful than a man who does not ride a dragon, but that does not make her more powerful than a man who also rides a dragon. Dragonriding remained a carefully guarded privilege, and Targaryen women who might otherwise become dragonriders were routinely denied the privilege (despite the oft repeated "you cannot steal a dragon," when Saera Targaryen attempted to claim a dragon from the dragonpit, she was thrown into a cell for the attempted "theft,"words used by Jaehaerys). The dragonkeepers were established explicitly to keep anyone, even those of Targaryen blood, from taking them without permission. Any "liberation" that she has achieved is an illusion. What she has gained is the ability to enact violence upon others who are less privileged, and this ability does not save her from being the victim of gender based violence herself.

Politically speaking, it is also true that Valyria was a "freehold," in that they did not have a hereditary monarchy, but instead had a political structure akin to Ancient Athens (which was itself democratic, but not at all progressive or feminist). Landholding citizens could vote on laws and on temporary leaders, Archons. Were any of the lords freeholder women? We don't know. If we take Volantis as an example, the free city that seems to consider itself the successor to Valyria, the party of merchants, the elephants, had several female leaders three hundred years ago, but the party of the aristocracy, the tigers, the party made up of Valyrian Old Blood nobility, has never had a female leader. Lys, the other free city, is known for it's pleasure houses, which mainly employ women kidnapped into sexual slavery (as well as some young men). It is ruled by a group of magisters, who are chosen from among the wealthiest and noblest men in the city, not women. There does not seem to be a tradition of female leadership among Valyrians, and that's reflected by Aegon I himself, who becomes king, rather than his older sister-wife, Visenya. And although there have been girls named heir, temporarily, among the pre-Dance Targaryens, none were named heir above a trueborn brother aside from Rhaenyra, a choice that sparked a civil war. In this sense, the Targaryens are no different from the rest of Westeros.

As for feminism or sexual liberation, there's just no evidence to support it. We know that polygamy was not common, but it was also not entirely unheard of, but incest, to keep the bloodlines "pure," was common. Incest and polygamy are certainly sexual taboos, both in the real world and in Westeros, that the Valyrians violated, but the violation of sexual taboos is not automatically sexually liberated or feminist. Polygamy, when it is exclusively practiced by men and polyandry is forbidden (and we have no examples of Valyrian women taking multiple husbands, outside of fanfic), is often abusive to young women. Incest leads to an erosion of family relationships and abusive grooming situations are inevitable. King Jaehaerys' daughters are an excellent case study, and the stories of Saera and Viserra are particularly heartbreaking. Both women were punished severely for "sexual liberation," Viserra for getting drunk and slipping into her brother Baelon's bed at age fifteen, in an attempt to avoid an unwanted marriage to an old man. She was not punished because she was sister attempting to sleep with a brother, but because she was the wrong sister. Her mother, the queen had already chosen another sister for Baelon, and believed her own teenage daughter was seducing her brother for nefarious reasons. As a sister, Viserra should have been able to look to her brother for protection, but as the product of an incestuous family, Viserra could only conceive of that protection in terms of giving herself over to him sexually.

Beyond that, sexual slavery was also common in ancient Valyria, a practice that persisted in Lys and Volantis, with women (and young men) trafficked from other conquered and raided nations. Any culture that is built on a foundation of slavery and which considers sexual slavery to be normal and permissible, is a culture of normalized rape. Not feminist, not progressive.

I think we get the picture! so where did this idea that Valyrians are more progressive come from? I think there are two reasons. One, the fandom has a bit of a tendency to imagine Valyrians and their traditions in opposition to Westerosi Sevenism, and if Sevenism is fantasy Catholicism, and the fantasy Catholics also hate the Valyrian ways, they must hate them because those annoying uptight religious freaks just hate everything fun and cool, right? They hate revealing clothing, hate pornographic tapestries, hate sex outside of marriage, hate bastards. So being on Sevenism's shit-list must be a mark of honor, a sign of progressive values? But it's such a surface level reading, and a real misunderstanding of the medieval Catholic church, and a conflating of that church with the later Puritan values that many of us in the Anglosphere associate with being "devout." For most of European history, the Catholic church was simply The Church, and the church was, ironically, where you would find the material actions which most closely align with modern progressive values. The church cared for lepers, provided educations for women, took care of orphans, and fed the poor. In GRRM's world, which is admittedly more secular than the actual medieval world, Sevenism nevertheless has basically the same function, feeding the poor instead of, you know, enslaving them.

Finally, I blame the shows. While Valyrians weren't a progressive culture, Daenerys Targaryen herself held relatively progressive individual values by a medieval metric. She is a slavery abolitionist, she elevates women within her ranks, and she takes control of her own sexuality (after breaking free from her Targaryen brother). But Daenerys wasn't raised as a Targaryen. She grew up an orphan in exile, hearing stories of her illustrious ancestors from her brother, who of the two did absorb a bit of that culture, and is not coincidentally, fucked up, abusive, and misogynistic. He feels a sexual ownership over his sister, arranges a marriage for her, and even after her marriage, feels entitled to make decisions on her behalf. It is only after breaking away from Viserys that Dany comes into her own values. Having once been a mere object without agency of her own, she determines to save others from that fate and becomes an abolitionist. But because Game of Thrones gave viewers very little exposure to Targaryens aside from Daenerys, House Targaryen, in the eyes of most show watchers, is most closely associated with Dany and her freedom-fighter values. And as for Rhaenyra in House of the Dragon, being a female heir does not make her feminist or progressive, although it is tempting to view her that way when she is juxtaposed against Aegon II. Her "sexual liberation" was a lesson given to her by her uncle Daemon, a man who had an express interest in "liberating" her so that she would sleep with him, it was not a value she was raised with. In fact, she was very nearly disinherited for it, and was forced into a marriage with a gay man as a result of said "liberation." She had no interest in changing succession laws to allow absolute primogeniture, no interest in changing laws or norms around bastardy despite having bastards; she simply viewed herself as an exception. Rhaenyra's entire justification for her claim is not the desire to uplift women, bring peace and stability to Westeros, or even to keep her brother off the throne, it is simply that she believes she deserves it because her father is the king and he told her she could have it, despite all tradition and norms, and in spite of the near certain succession crisis it will cause. Whether she is right or wrong, absolutism is not progressive.

And let me just say, none of this means that you can't enjoy the Valyrians or think that they're fun or be a fan of house Targaryen. This insistence that Targaryens are the progressive, feminist (read: morally good) house seems by connected to the need of some fans to make their favorite characters unproblematic. If the Valyrians are "bad," does that make you a bad person for enjoying them? Of course not. But let's stop the moral grandstanding about the "feminist" and "progressive" Valyrians in a series that is an analogue for medieval feudalism. Neither of those things can exist under the systems in place in Westeros, nor could they have existed in the slavery based empire of conquest that was old Valyria.

[ladystoneboobs]

an examination of theon greyjoy's feelings about and (implied) relationship with evil uncle euron

Theon searched for his uncle Euron's Silence. Of that lean and terrible red ship he saw no sign, but his father's Great Kraken was there, her bow ornamented with a grey iron ram in the shape of its namesake. [...] It might be only a caution, now that he thought on it. A defensive move, lest the war spill out across the sea. Old men were cautious by nature. His father was old now, and so too his uncle Victarion, who commanded the Iron Fleet. His uncle Euron was a different song, to be sure, but the Silence did not seem to be in port. It's all for the good, Theon told himself. This way, I shall be able to strike all the more quickly. -Theon I, aCoK

the first we read of euron is in theon's first pov as he searched the harbor at lordsport for euron's ship. no reason is given for singling that ship out nor an initial reaction to its absence. later down the page euron is described as different from balon and victarion, with none of an older man's caution to be expected from him. that's why theon thought it for the best that euron's ship was not in port, though at this point it appears his only concern is being the boldest greyjoy around, commanding the fleet all the more quickly for its already being assembled, and not being outshone by euron. the only hint at more is his description of the ship as "terrible".

"You can marry off your sister," Esgred[Asha] observed, "but not your uncles." "My uncles . . ." Theon's claim took precedence over those of his father's three brothers, but the woman had touched on a sore point nonetheless. In the islands it was scarce unheard of for a strong, ambitious uncle to dispossess a weak nephew of his rights, and usually murder him in the bargain. But I am not weak, Theon told himself, and I mean to be stronger yet by the time my father dies. [...] [Asha-as-Esgred, to Theon:] "Euron Croweye has no lack of cunning, though. I've heard men say terrible things of that one." Theon shifted his seat. "My uncle Euron has not been seen in the islands for close on two years. He may be dead." If so, it might be for the best. Lord Balon's eldest brother had never given up the Old Way, even for a day. His Silence, with its black sails and dark red hull, was infamous in every port from Ibben to Asshai, it was said. -Theon II, aCoK

by theon's next chapter, when he and (unknown, to him) asha discuss their greyjoy uncles, theon has learned that euron hasn't been seen in the iron islands for two years. atp, rather than just noting that euron's not at home, theon has decided it's for the best if he's died somewhere and can never return. the word terrible is again used wrt euron and it's also said that his ship is infamous all over the world. euron is the only greyjoy never to have given up the old way in any sense, and the implied danger to theon is that he could also partake in the old tradition of a strong, ambitious uncle murdering his nephew. euron has thus been establishled as a villain, a threat, and possible kinslayer more specifically but we have yet to learn all the other, more unique aspects of his villainy. i think it likely that grrm, with his gardener-writing, had not yet decided that euron was an incestuous sexual predator. the risk of nepoticide is enough to explain theon's nervous shifting at the mention of euron's cunning and the terrible things said of him, but it could also apply to euron's full characterization only revealed years later in aeron's pov, one of those little half-open seeds gardener-grrm could decide to grow later.

[Robb Stark, to his assembled bannermen and his mother:] "Euron Greyjoy is no man's notion of a king, if half of what Theon said of him was true. Theon is the rightful heir, unless he's dead . . . but Victarion commands the Iron Fleet. I can't believe he would remain at Moat Cailin while Euron Crow's Eye holds the Seastone Chair. He has to go back." -Catelyn V, aSoS

our next clue about theon/euron is not from his own pov but in the book between his arcs when he's "offscreen". i'd say the fact that theon had confided to robb at all about euron is significant, let alone that he related enough things about euron for robb to rhetorically dismiss half of what theon told him and still feel confident of ironborn infighting with euron on the throne. (with theon's status unknown and asha absent from the isles too, euron would have a claim to that throne and a better one than victarion regardless as the eldest surviving greyjoy. vic is the dutiful younger brother who wouldn't normally make any power play, so for robb to know that euron's rule would be challenged by his younger brothers shows he does indeed have insider intel wrt euron.)

this accurate read from robb stands in pretty, ahem, stark contrast to everything theon must have told robb and himself about the likelihood of a robb/balon alliance. an impartial observer who knew (as theon did) that balon's first rebellion was about bringing back the old way more than just independance from the iron throne would have known those goals were not in line with the kitn's cause and that alliance was a no-go from the start. we see in the quoted portion of theon i above how he lied to himself about balon becoming a cautious old man and this being his time in the sun, yet it seems euron was the one family member he couldn't lie to himself about. not only did euron make such an impression on him that theon always remembered him very clearly but the effect was such that amid all his hostage time at wf fantasizing about his return home, he felt the need to tell robb the truth about this one scary relative by confiding in him with multiple stories. (though if euron had sexually abused theon, i can't imagine him ever explicitly revealing that to robb or anyone else.)

"My uncle[Victarion] is never coming back," Reek told them[the ironmen Victarion abandoned at Moat Cailin]. "The kingsmoot crowned his brother Euron, and the Crow's Eye has other wars to fight. You think my uncle values you? He doesn't. You are the ones he left behind to die. He scraped you off the same way he scrapes mud off his boots when he wades ashore." -Reek(/Theon) II, aDwD

this is euron's only name-drop in theon's dance pov, significant only in that it shows theon had recent news of his uncles, enough to know that euron dgaf about keeping balon's northern conquests and had instead drawn vic and the other captains far away. which brings me to ...

Crowfood. Theon remembered. An old man, huge and powerful, with a ruddy face and a shaggy white beard. He had been seated on a garron, clad in the pelt of a gigantic snow bear, its head his hood. Under it he wore a stained white leather eye patch that reminded Theon of his uncle Euron. He'd wanted to rip it off Umber's face, to make certain that underneath was only an empty socket, not a black eye shining with malice. Instead he had whimpered [...] -Theon I, tWoW

here, we have theon meeting a non-bolton northman he's known before, no different really from all the non-bolton northmen inside wf or any others he'd met growing up there, none of whom really seemed to scare him as his captors did, yet the mere sight of mors "crowfood" umber's eye patch is enough to freak theon the fuck out, wanting to rip off the eye patch for reassurance that crowfood was just a regular guy. this is the kind of terror we'd expect wrt ramsay, which would make sense in that regard, as ramsay had been his most immediate abuser, torturing theon in every sense for around a year almost right up until the moment of his escape, and ramsay's still right there in wf, so theon had good reason to still fear recapture by him. euron, though? that's an uncle he hadn't seen in over ten years, who theon knew to be far from wf as seen in the above dance quote, so he had no reason to expect to see him again in that part of westeros and one would think he had enough immediate problems not to worry about someone he hadn't seen in so long. you'd think his pre-ned, pre-ramsay childhood with all the greyjoys would feel a lifetime away with all he'd been through since, esp the reekening. but whatever impression euron left on him was still just as clear and fresh as ever, so that anyone with an eye patch could suddenly make him feel fear of an uncle hundreds of miles and a decade removed from him. from this moment i take away two things: 1) theon will survive stannis and have to meet uncle euron again bc otherwise i don't see the point of grrm throwing this in here and 2) it now feels a helluva lot more likely that theon was another csa victim of euron's bc i don't think this kind of sudden fear could be accounted for with just general scariness from euron. feels more like being triggered by a trauma flashback (just as aeron had as soon as he heard that euron had taken balon's throne), doesn't it? and after having been recently sexually abused by ramsay all that time it makes sense that he'd be even more sensitive to reminders of another abuser as soon as he'd finally escaped ramsay, moreso than when he was just nervously shifting as he and asha vaguely talked of euron's terribleness.

after all, theon/aeron are already linked in the feastdance as both are youngest greyjoy siblings who happen to also be victims of abuse who had buried their old selves in a new identity. aeron's old self even sounds a lot like pre-ramsay theon. theon remembered pre-born-again aeron as the "most amiable of his uncles, feckless and quick to laugh, fond of songs, ale, and women", and aeron described his younger self as "a sack of wine with legs. He would sing, he would dance [...] he would jape and jabber and make mock. He played the pipes, he juggled, he rode horses and could drink more than all the Wynches and the Botleys, and half the Harlaws too." doesn't that sound like the ever-smiling and joking unserious theon we first met, fond of wine and womanizing, once a good dancer, and better ahorse than most ironborn? the only part really missing for theon is aeron's ability to always win literal pissing contests. you'd think being sexually abused by two different evildoers (euron and ramsay) would be enough of a parallel, but this winds preview chapter certainly makes it seem like they also shared the specific experience of being abused by euron in childhood too. our poor youngest kraken really did never have a chance, did he?

shoutout to this post detailing the evidence of theon's sa by ramsay for inspiration. ik i'm not the first to suggest abuse by euron too, but thought it useful to make the case by laying out all the relevant quotes as evidence.

[atopvisenyashill]

Fancasts From Atop Visenya’s Hill

-> Conan Gray as Satin of Oldtown

Satin, they called him, even in the wool and mail and boiled leather of the Night's Watch; the name he'd gotten in the brothel where he'd been born and raised. He was pretty as a girl with his dark eyes, soft skin, and raven's ringlets.

[amber-laughs]

listen jon and ygritte were rawing on the ground in front of everybody for months. any modern au jon should only be having sex in an ihop parking lot midday lunch rush okay?

[horizon-verizon]

totally forgot about this....

[mouthlessmaiden]

ok the “theon is so visibly gay he’s an easily clockable fruit and balon hates him bc he’s homophobic and hates QUEER FREAKS xD” jokes have gotten really old now i think. this is starting to remind me of the 2021 boypetwhore bit where the joke is just “x character experiences homophobic violence” and hmmmm we gotta think about that. i think it’s exploitative, offensive, not engaging with the text in any real capacity and i rly think it’s time to ask like. why is it funny for these characters to experience homophobia.

[atopvisenyashill]

do you think george has purposefully written theon as queer? the jokes are funny but fandom tends to oversimplify everything lol

okay i’m gonna be real honest. i don’t really care what george thought, theon IS gay lmao.

i’ve seen this around, for theon specifically a lot but it happens w other characters that get like Shipped As Gay, that the jokes about theon Experiencing Homophobia are homophobic in and of themselves, because you’re laughing at the idea of Theon like, being called a f*g by his father basically, or the idea that being very devoted to a queer reading of a character is somehow not as serious a take, it’s all haha fujo-ing out but it’s like. Well I’m laughing bc Theon’s story is very familiar to me lol. And I don’t think funny posts about Theon being effeminate or being in love with Robb (or Jon or Dagmar or Ramsay or whoever we’re talking about) are inherently jokes, I think it’s a perfectly legitimate reading of Theon to be like “this is a very queer story arc” and I don’t think reading romantic and queer overtures into his story is an oversimplification of his feelings for Robb or his relationship with Balon. Not to be a huge embarassing nerd about this, but I like the Mark Hamill stance here - if I say Theon is gay, HE IS GAY. It’s funny because he’s got a very darkly funny narrative and I love to have a laugh but it’s not a joke to me.

Do I think George wrote Theon intentionally as queer? Man, fuck if I know. I would definitely argue that he’s directly writing something romantic between Stannis and Davos, and he’s definitely saying a lot about Satin & sexuality & gender, but I wouldn’t bet money on him directly thinking the words “theon is gay.” but he’s not like, stupid, he’s just as much a fan of fantasy as he is a writer of it and these close, intimate friendships between men are a very big part of it, I think it’s hard to be as savvy of a writer as he is and not know that writing something like “where was i i should have died with him” might set some hearts aflutter. Nor do I think the parallel of Robb becoming close with two children of enemies in Jeyne Westerling & Theon, and those two loving him but getting roped into their parents’ schemes to betray Robb, is an accidental parallel. homoerotic friendships are very common in historical fiction, in fantasy, and I think it’s likely George was playing that angle when writing this story arc. That’s not quite the same as George conceiving of Theon (or Robb, or Ramsay) as A Bisexual Man but I don’t really care about that difference. What’s on the page is a story I see queerness in, and I think it’s likely to continue. He’s going to keep up this guilt & devotion to Robb’s shade, he’s going to wrestle a lot with his masculinity and his struggle to uphold Westerosi patriarchal norms due to his disabled body & emotional trauma, I think he’s on a collision course with Jon Snow and those two are bound to have a few homoerotic scenes of their own given all their parallels, and Seven willing, he will get to wear something pretty and shiny and get complimented for it at least once (by Asha preferably but I’d take like, anyone).

[agentrouka-blog]

It's weird how often Catelyn's virginity comes up in the books (LF telling the entire court for years that he took her maidenhead to the point where the Lannister brothers use it to downplay her vritue and honor .... disgusting man). I wonder how that is going to come into play with Sansa, since she now knows that Baelish believed he slept with Cat but actually took Lysa's virginity. Also crazy that one man's word has this much reach :(

What I find interesting is how irrelevant it ultimately is. No one is running a big smear campaign maligning the morals of the Tullys and the North or laughing at Ned. The biggest leverage that Littlefinger gets out of it is underscoring the level of trust and influence he may have over them. Catelyn is aghast at the moment Tyrion brings it up but doesn't spare it much thought beyond that.

So GRRM is introducing this idea not for itself but for the overall concept.

Sansa isn't shocked when she hears this or reflects on it later, either.

You said it was my mother you loved. But of course Lady Catelyn was dead, so even if she had loved Petyr secretly and given him her maidenhood, it made no matter now. (ASOS, Sansa VI)

Really, it reveals something about the flexibility of social mores in the right context. If pregnancy isn't an issue, a lady's virtue is mostly a matter of individual opinion. If everyone agrees it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. If someone takes issue with it, it gains importance. The same subject comes up for Sansa with Mya Stone, for whom this lost virtue is more of an issue because of her bastard status and how public she was about her attachment to Mychel Redfort.

Brune would be a good match for a bastard girl like Mya Stone, she thought. It might be different if her father had acknowledged her, but he never did. And Maddy says that she's no maid either. [...] Mychel Redfort was the one. [...] Mychel was the best young swordsman in the Vale, and gallant . . . or so poor Mya thought, till he wed one of Bronze Yohn's daughters. Lord Horton gave him no choice in the matter, I am sure, but it was still a cruel thing to do to Mya."

This is, incidentally, the exact same scenario that Cat knew would come to pass back in AGOT, also not judging Mya. Cat never judged Lysa for her mystery affair, either. And, fittingly, neither girl withholds sympathy for Mya in this. Nor does Sansa judge Myranda for her affair with Marillion. Love and pleasure both are justification enough.

(Meanwhile, she doesn't make the argument to Littlefinger's molestation that it's immoral in terms of sexual conduct, but that he's a) married, and b) could have been her father, and c) pleading to be left alone.)

I think this is less important in and of itself than in what it implies about Sansa's view of sexual virtue, which is a great deal more liberal than some might expect in a world where physical virginity is officially prized and the mere act of copulation has the legal power to determine the validity of a marriage.

This is the same book where Margaery is subjected to a physical examination of her maidenly status - which everyone understands to be ridiculously devoid of sense, as a "maidenhead" is vulnerable to all kinds of physical activities, such as horseriding. But it becomes evidence in a case of high treason (adultery) where physical virtue is tied to matters of state.

The tension between official and legal expectations of virtue and tacit acceptance of indulgence - duty and love/desire - is likely to continue to play a role in Sansa's arc, and both in the sense of temptation and indulgence, and in the sense of hypocritical legal technicalities rearing their head.

[horizon-verizon]

Why does Jon Connington dislike Elia so much? She died in such a tragic way, yet he never has a kind word for her, not even in front of her 'son.'

DISCLAIMER: I could have been concise, but as I was writing all this, I came to a lot of realizations, so apologies in advance.

It's a very passive hatred and I think it's because he's uber-closeted at a level that's breathtaking. Wholly, it's a coping mechanism of and against queerness and misogyny the way with him for that. He's a bag of self contradictories and doesn't have much regard for his own life out of a deep sense of failure to perform an ideal he layers on top of his extant political function as one of the Targs' protectors. I often think about that one poem where the speaker's like "I am not in love with you, I am in love with being in love" when I try to think about Jon Con.

Like Cersei, he eventually pedestalizes Rhaegar and even more so after his death. He's made him into a paragon of male virtue and human appeal so he could continue to feel his desires are not abnormal. While Cersei does it because it was like she was as close to the sort of power masculinized in that world and denied to woman (which is just as a "visceral" thing, to have agency), Jon Con does it to affirm his own "lacking" masculinity. He is not totally comfortable with his own sexuality nor the yearning since he still has to go out into the world and "be a man". Through Rhaegar he definitely can at least privately express/validate that yearning and feel like a man but also close to "men" without having to really address it consciously or exposing it. By not really confronting the layers of himself "all the way" or as much as he could, he re-relies on that patriarchal definition and field of "manliness". It's close to having one's cake and eating it, too. A compulsion that replaces real connection; but it he kinda transformed himself into an all feeling automaton in the process in order to fulfill the compulsion to "sacrifice" his life to something like a higher purpose. And Elia was not a person-person but a means to further Rhaegar.

A)

This is a society where:

there is an emphasis on obedience, maintaining the social hierarchy, and obligation to one's "lord" or the gods, and yes the Faith of the Seven (the fictional Catholicism) informs the model of masculinity in Westeros, esp through the Andal chivalry and courtliness; the express/prove/practice the "greatest" form of love to either a lover or the gods or one's lord is to completely sublimate oneself to the gods'/lord's rule and wellbeing...which kinda came on conflict with the whole warrior-takes-all thing until the emphasis on fighting for a specific lord but it's self contradictory in its rigidity

men who may love to read without also swinging swords/being good at that and aren't maesters/are not studying to be one are close to "unmanning" themselves. Let's sit with that. Maleness is proving to other men you have "strength" and having control over as many bodies as one can...doesn't really lend into exploring oneself or seeing things to appreciate in others or nature, and aristocratic maleness (the primary-only ones allowed to use warfare to acquire resources) is the ideal/only "human" that exists or matters. A man's very health is treated one and the same as his "manliness", sometimes literally (some research reveals that having a mistress showed a ruler's very virality and prostitutes were "necessary" for men to relieve their pressing "urges" without becoming violent and disrupting the "order"--[at least]15th to 19th centuries). This sort of context breeds very emotionally stunted men who can really/mostly only objectify people and compartmentalize others and their own emotions. It breeds a certain inflexibility in men that close down their means of really being aware of their own actions' consequences or caring beyond THE GOAL. You also must dehumanize women.

Every person in this society who does not or can't conform to the conscripts placed on them according has had to develop ways to both perform their social "duties" while coming to terms with the limits of said duties on how they can express themselves, find intimacy, access resources or amenities, accrue social respect, etc. For men, that is military achievements and violence to show you can get material objects and/or protect your lord's best interests. One thing about Jon is that he's always been hungry for "glory" like many other men and boys, to make his "name" mean something and gain that sort of "love". Problem with this sort of masculinity is that it cyclically generates an insecurity in men & boys and compels them to disregard most other types of male affection other than those which "coincidentally" serve the higher lord.

GRRM informed us that Jon was gay not-so subtly. Unlike Laenor or Renly or Loras or the Daeron prince Olenna avoided marrying, Jon hasn't had a real lover (someone he shared a life with) to even help to alleviate this compelled loneliness that goes beyond having a lover. And I don't mean people he's slept with, I mean a man invested in his well being, always having his back and prioritizing him the way very close companions or partners do. This maybe Jon's most safe way of experiencing lover's love and "love" himself.

B)

So another thing about him coming from this phenomenon is he seems to want to have real male companions & "love" them in other ways than just romantically. But even male platonic affection is pretty restrictive as much as we have Ned and Robert's friendship...which we see in the first book is unsteady and false with every realization that Ned has about Robert.

Making up for that kind of stunted platonic love, the sensual (diff from sexual) affection he has for men & Rhaegar works to maintain that sense of intimacy he craves. Once when Rhaegar visited his family's lands, Jon says Rhaegar's music/voice moved women to cry, and they seemed to connect to something he is aware of in himself (again, other than his sexual attraction to men), but the men around Rhaegar do not or won't and thus cannot even fathom or detect. A certain "appreciation" for beauty in life or the capacity to observe such, which is a sensual experience in of itself. That would be a wonder to see in a man; the beauty is and has to be under a guise of male domination. Loras and Renly, that Daeron prince and his lover, and Laenor x Joffrely/Qarl still must live in secret, as open as it was, but theirs was a different sort of "hiding" bc they don't hide themselves from themselves to the extent that Jon does. I think that it is very likely that present-day! nor past!Jon may not grab that chance of love and companionship because the covertness of the love like Renly/Laenor/Daeron can no longer compare to the imagined satisfaction or fulfillment of his obligation to Rhaegar OR/AND it would mean he'd have to re-adjust some ideas of masculinity he doesn't want to re-adjust, and like I mentioned I think this guy feels the need to just hold on to every scrap of conventional masculinity to feel normal.

The men like his father certainly cannot care about such a visceral thing that exists in these people that makes them feel connected to something more then themselves but also exactly like themselves; his dad was way more eager to talk about lands with Rhaegar and acquiring them to care. So perhaps Jon also saw in Rhaegar's known melancholy disposition who didn't quite fit Andal-Faith patriarchal conventions a fellow outsider. The single-mindedness I mentioned could come from his own unwillingness to really let Rhaegar be a normal guy.

He def always tried to put his yearning to use into a source of the single-minded devotion to his political function to Rhaegar and his family as a protector. Rhaegar was good with the sword, but the symbol we readers and the world then see him through his songs and his harp; Rhaegar is a figure of poetry and emotion that is socially divorced or posed counter to warfare, and he like Dany or Lyanna moves between the gender binaries of this world. Rhaegar became the lynchpin to Jon's own understanding of what a "man" is through Rhaegar being a sort of portal to this "thing" that really many humans across identities feel, this sensual love for life and anything that could psychologically move you (you can't really "escape" music and thus music has always been a very "easy" spiritual device to transmit emotion).

Even before Rhaegar's death, I think he felt very indebted to and psychologically dependent on Rhaegar's wellbeing, which he conflated with political "success" through a legacy now that the actual man is dead. Rhaegar has to mean something so his own dedication might be "real". Rhaegar's death and then his failure to even perform this "simple" duty towards Rhaegar only inflated this devotion to this sort of devotion.

Rhaegar's family (Elia and the kids) is only as valuable as what they do for Rhaegar-the-heir, Rhaegar-the-man.

C)

Jon does express that Elia's death was horrible (A Dance with Dragons - "The Lost Lord"):

but it's less about Elia's suffering and how her suffering is part of the larger loss he and many people saw that the Targs and esp Rhaegar had. Elia is not really much of a person so much as a vessel or device AND a part of a whole.

She also got to be with Rhaegar and experience many more aspects of inaccessible intimacy he feels he can never have. Be sexually and emotionally (even if not exactly romantic) intimate with him in all the ways Jon Con never could. AND IN "PUBLIC" in ways he could never even if Rhaegar ever returned his feelings.

And after all that, she can't do the one thing that she/women in general in this society are socially "obligated" to do (A Dance with Dragons - "Griffin Reborn"):

I think that part of how he dealt/deals with his unrequited AND unfulfilled (read: "impossible") affections for Rhaegar--AND/OR men/human love in general--is that this and most marriages have the function that would benefit Rhaegar in getting him heirs, and Jon himself can "benefit" or be useful to Rhaegar as his and his father's Hand or protector. An expression of that affection-devotion, a tweaking of the lady and her courtly knight/lover from courtly and chivalric romance, but gay, or really queer. Because his secret yearning runs parallel to his sexuality and his sexuality fuels that sensual. yearning, it's queer as all hell. But he's so baked into the masculinity train, he also still carries the sexism.

If Elia, who's allowed to receive Rhaegar in those desired forms, can't even do "this one thing right", it's like a slap in Jon's face at times because that small nest, this group of people bounded by "duty" and practicing affections (Elia, Rhaegar, all of Rhaegar's closest friends, himself, Rhaegar's children) that he convinced himself to adopt as his existential purpose, is created for the man he idolized, or centered around him. As what this system designs that to be, as when if you need anything done you need heirs, connections, etc.

We also know Rhaegar had some sort of private goal, and every companion he had may not have told them expressly what it was but each more than likely wanted to anything they could to help him nonetheless perform it, which entails self sacrifice.

[afterthefeast]

there’s no way robert baratheon didn’t have syphilis

[horizon-verizon]

Here’s the link

And here’s Emily Carey saying Alicent was in love with Criston

Response to this post.

🔗1st Article, June 12, 2024 [LATimes]: "As Alicent becomes more ‘adrift,’ Olivia Cooke’s purpose grows in ‘House of the Dragon’"

Excerpt:

Season 2 opens with the characters split apart. Rhaenyra is grieving the loss of her son Lucerys at the hand of Alicent’s one-eyed son Aemond in Dragonstone. Alicent remains in King’s Landing, where Aegon sits on the Iron Throne. Cooke says Alicent “gets a massive dose of the reality” when her “psycho sons” take control of the realm. “[She is] being forced to reckon with sublimating her own power in the raising of her sons,” Condal says. “The minute she puts Aegon on the throne, her great power as the queen of the Seven Kingdoms is immediately diminished.” The separate storylines for Alicent and Rhaenyra meant the actors didn’t get to spend as much time together on set this season, to their disappointment. It also meant that the uneasy relationship between Rhaenyra and Alicent unfolds over a distance — at least early on. Cooke refuses to say whether the characters reunite for fear of spoilers. But Condal acknowledges that it’s essential to the story for fans to see the characters together again.

“So much of the fun and the drama is taking these characters who have these complicated relationships and separating them because of the forces of politics and the war at hand,” he says. “And then finding ways to bring them back together, and seeing how the world and the war have changed them.” On a more positive note, Alicent has the opportunity to explore her sexuality this season, coupling up with a character who will, for now, remain unnamed (let’s just say he matches her freak). It’s a rare expression of freedom for a woman who has lacked agency, which Condal says has “greatly affected who her character is.” “That was really important because you’ve not seen Alicent experience that in her adult life, and all of a sudden, she has all these teenage, passionate feelings toward someone,” Cooke says. “I think that makes her feel insane.”

🔗2nd Article, Sep 29, 2022 [BuisnessInsider]: "'House of the Dragon' star Emily Carey says Alicent was originally meant to be 'in love' with Criston Cole"

Excerpt:

But in a recent interview with Variety, Carey said that there is another reason for the feelings of betrayal. "She goes through so many emotions in one go — a concoction cocktail of all of these feelings," Carey said. "It's the betrayal of, 'Hold on. You slept with him, and I'm in love with him, and you know this. That's not fair.' Alicent is all about duty, through and through. It's always duty versus heart with her… I'm glad that I got to show how she became this angry woman. And I think that scene is such a turning point."  She added: "There's the betrayal of, 'You lied to me.' Then the betrayal of, 'I swear this upon the memory of my mother,' which is what you see in episode two with their shared trauma. It's something that they bond over. Alicent took Rhaenyra to the Sept and showed this emotional vulnerability, and let her see this part of her that she doesn't really show to anyone."  The idea that Alicent is "in love" with Criston has shocked fans because "House of the Dragon" hasn't really alluded to romantic feelings between Alicent and Criston. In the first episode, Alicent and Rhaenyra discuss Criston briefly when he appears during the jousting tournament but there aren't any other scenes where Alicent explicitly shows affection for the Kingsguard. In addition, some fans thought Alicent's feelings of betrayal were actually jealousy due to romantic feelings for Rhaenyra. The pair shared a close bond in the first episode and many fans believe that the characters may actually be queer. During a roundtable interview, which Insider attended ahead of the series, Carey said that she thought the characters were "in love a little bit" when she first read the script."I think any woman could think back to the best friend that they had at 14 years old, and it's a relationship and a closeness unlike any other," Carey, who is also queer, said. "You do toe the line between platonic and romantic." In a later interview with the New York Times, Carey and Alcock said they felt like they were "about to kiss" after an emotional scene in episode four where their characters reconnected.

[revindicatedbyhistory]

dorne probably would be my favorite ASOIAF region if so much of its writing didnt have all these orientalist undertones