No, what was depicted was fucking rape. If Cersei's kink is to always say no, and expect Jaime to force her then the show should have established that in advance.

How eager would you be to volunteer to march 60 miles toward an army of 100,000 coming down to kill you? wouldn't staying in a nice, safe fort with a giant giant wall protecting you seem better? Let some other guys go fight the rebels. That Jon got as many volunteers as he did is clearly meant to depict his high…

I still don't quite get why the poison necklace was needed at all. Couldn't Olenna just have a vial of poison? Or her own necklace have it? Why involve Sansa?

I have a problem with Littlefinger admitting it to Sansa so easily actually. Sansa might tell someone at some point (as he wants her, no way he's just intending to kill her) sure, he can deny it, but he's relying on no one even suspecting him.

I just view it as a production error, the scene did not come off as the director intended to most of the audience. That said, they've publicly stated it was intended to be seen as consentual, and thus the character of Cersei in the show sees it that way and her actions have nothing to do with what we on the outside…

"So I sort of feel like yeah, the writers didn't do well with that scene,
but so far there hasn't been a massive global outbreak of men now
raping women"

This might be fine if there was anyone arguing the Red Wedding constituted self defence on Frey & Bolton's parts. (It was Stand Your Ground! Frey felt threatened by the big wolf!) The people upset about a depiction of rape that has a sizeable contingent of deniers claiming it wasn't have reason to be concerned that…

This. As depicted on screen, it was rape, but the director intended it to be understood as consentual and Cersei sees it that way. As far as the narrative of the TV show is concerned, Jaime did not rape Cersei. Think of the scene as a massive production error, not a plot point.

Killing the Mad King was probably Jaime's greatest moral deed, which is an important point this show is making: Dumb absolutist oaths of loyalty are not ethical when the person they're given to is a monster.

Sure there are possible explanations, but we shouldn't have to provide them. It was a big deal that Londo poisoned Refa, when it came time to kill Refa, at least Vir should have brought it up and Londo rejected it for whatever reason one likes.

I do love "And the Rock" but reading this now I realize one problem JMS didn't resolve: Molari had poisoned Refa with the first half of the two part undetectable poison.  This was sufficient inducement that Refa actually did cut off contact with the Shadows.  Does it seem likely that Refa would then turn and kill…

Who knows?  Why do we like stories and "entertrainment" at all?  It's not rational to begin with but we do, and we may as well express preferences and react honestly.

Yeah and we're even beat over the head with Theon's explicit regret that he only belatedly recognizes Ned as his real father and how much better his life would have been had he remained loyal to Robb.

One thing that helps with Tolkien is that you don't need to worry about the gritty realities of human behaviour when dealing with different races.  Elves are another species, it's plausible they can all be moral, kind and wise since they're explictly not human and so forth.  They're akin to space aliens.  Orcs can all…

Ok but who is watching a show about dragons and wargs hoping it's actually the Medieval Wire (plus magic)?  I mean, I suppose the show could have Joffrey go mad king, slaughter all the major characters and rule with a bloody fist to his natural death and that might not be totally unrealistic in the annals of actual…

I don't mean it was dishonourable, just that it's pretty badass/decisive establishing he's not squeamish and merely "scaring" Joffrey seems a pretty thin reason on which to deny this chance to resolve everything safely and quickly.

True, but saving a woman and minor from execution is still a kind of honour in their system - Ned isn't vinctive he wants the rightful heir to take the throne and other than that had no concern for more bloodshed.  I don't mind that part of his story, seems pretty consistent with him.  He also doesn't want the last…

It might be in the books but in the show nothing suggests Ned declines for the reason you state.

All I'm saying is the writing isn't perfect and sometimes those flaws are kind of important.  Still like the show and story, but it's not bulletproof.  We can presume certain things that might explain these concerns but in the most improrant cases I think the writers should make it clear and beyond this kind of debate…

Have not read, of course the books might set it up better, my complaint is the show's lack of insight to these moves.