I have not said that rape should be "off-topic" for any writer, only that I don't like reading it. I enjoy Martin's books that I try to skip those parts when I can.

Look, collex, you keep attributing things to me that I haven't explicitly said. You're drawing conclusions based on a variety of different comments that I made in reply to a variety of different people.

Yup, that's pretty much what I'm saying. But just because the depiction could be considered realistic doesn't mean that it doesn't bother me.

You are drawing conclusions from my comments that I haven't espoused. Since you've taken the time to quote me, let me take the time to explain the meaning behind each of your examples:

Nope, I'm not. I would really appreciate it if you could quote any of my comments that have made any of those accusations.

It sounds like you're arguing with something that I haven't said. And I could ask you the same question - why do you get so worked up over a work of fiction? My original comment was one sentence long, and said nothing about condemning the series or telling people not to read/watch it.

Considering the amount of rape that occurs in Martin's books (which I mostly enjoy, by the way), you might think about directing your advice to him.

I'm not condemning the author or the series. I actually like most things about the books. The world-building is impressive, the plot is intricate and compelling, and the characters are interesting.

I'd love for you to point out the part where I've said that.

I do, in the sense that even though horrible things happen to both men and women in the series, after having been raped, the female characters are often discarded and forgotten if they're not lucky enough to be part of the main plot. It does seem trivial to me in that way.

I totally understand the double standard regarding de-sensitization to violence and prudishness regarding sex. The only thing that I want to be clear about that just because someone is objecting to sexual violence doesn't mean that they're a prude. And that it's a valid criticism.

Yes, exactly. My objection is not because I'm a prude. Objecting to a LOT of sexual violence is not the same thing as objecting to a lot of sex.

And the consensual sex is something that I have absolutely no problem with.

I don't think that it's silly to say that using "historical accuracy" in a fictional fantasy is ironic. Yes, it is informed by our culture, and our past culture, and G.R.R. Martin's perception of the world. BUT every single thing that appears in the series is the result of Martin making a conscious decision to put…

Nope, I'm not saying that. But referencing it in a way that makes it seem trivial and off-hand contributes to real-world problems regarding sexual violence. It would just be nice to be able to read about epic fantastical political scheming and not worry that every single female character I come across is going to…

No problem, Charlie. Just frustrated with the fact that the two things are often conflated.

I have no objection to consensual sex or nudity that is necessary to the plot, and I realize that things happen within the context of the story.

Yes, but he's equating sexual puritanism to being de-sensitized to violence.

Setting aside the irony of claiming "historical accuracy" in a work of fantasy as a justification (smiley), I do realize that depiction does not equal endorsement. Also, I've had this discussion on other corners of the internet, and I'd hate to derail the post too much, especially because it's a just a quote, and I…

And this is where my criticism runs into opposition, because it makes it look as though I'm some kind of sex-hating prude. And my response to that is this (not that this is what you're saying, Charlie):