I wish there was one place where gender wasn't an extremely important topic. I'm sick of people with unemployable degrees turning every discussion into one about sex and gender. It seems like you can't talk about anything these days without words like 'heteronormative' ending up being thrown around, and it's getting…

By the fact that not one of the things she said was 'I don't want to have sex with you.' She said she didn't want to be caught by the priests, or her father, or judged by the gods, but she never said ''I don't want your penis in my vagina.''

But we're not talking about the show.

As everyone said the billion other times - her only objection in the book was the location. She wanted to hook up, she just didn't want to the priests to walk in on it, but she got turned on and then changed her mind. That's consent, by definition.

Ros didn't exist in the books.

It isn't english lit, it's the social/gender studies you gotta watch out for.

Hah. I'd love to see your reaction to her chapters in the fourth book.

I think we're getting down to too much interpretation and speculation here, but all I wanna say is that her benevolence isn't something that would necessarily stop once she gains power. After all, power is something that has to be retained, constantly, which is a huge message in the show. But it would stop if she ever…

SNAPE OF THRONES: My fan fic about Snape's passionate affair with Brienne.

I'd argue that Jaime's story is about identity, not redemption. He changes because he wants to be remembered differently when he loses his only means of expression and agency, not because he has a moral awakening and realizes that the horrible things he's done were horrible.

We're both arguing passionately in a pointless comment thread in a random corner of the internet, the only difference is that I'm arguing passionately about something I'm passionate about, whereas the only thing you're doing is arguing passionately about how un-passionate you are about it.

But that's just it, in the books she DID murder him to avoid the Sansa treatment (well, not her personally, but you know). Whereas in the show, she doesn't do anything that isn't in the interest of attaining the crown for herself. You're right that she couldn't have stopped him, but there's a huge difference between…

You really think the author is going to read your comment? Even if you're BFF's, the thread is up to 1600 posts. Send a text next time, then go to your doctor and get a script for some valium or something. Damn.

I imagine that's a reference to the scene where the Hound rescues her from the peasants during the riot.

How is her pandering to Joffrey's murderous nature not malicious? It's heavily suggested that she would happily let Joffrey murder whores in his room all day if he'd stick to that and stop making uncontrollable interferences in the ruling of the kingdoms. Compare to the book, where it's almost outright stated that…

How so? Did I miss his complicated treatment of the navigation of sexual consent in a context in which sexual freedom exists but within the remnants of overarching patriarchal social constructs?

They explained that ages ago - in the book the dynamic is much more complicated, she consents on their initial encounter, but is afterwards neglected and isolated when he primarily ignores her except at night, when he tries to get her pregnant. She then goes about using the magical power of the cowgirl position (which…

Really? I thought she was portrayed as much more benevolent in the books, where we really only see her scheming/plotting third hand when others suspect her of it - she's never directly implicated.
In the show, we get a pretty direct display of the fact that she's willing to do whatever it takes to become Queen and…

Yes. It's stated outright that she's had private affairs.

Why are you telling this to a random bunch of people on the internet? None of us forced you to watch the show then read a click-bait article about it.