The naked hypocrisy of Game Of Thrones’ nudity

boing
144

That is indeed true. I am glad I’ve successfully given that impression. It also pleases me that the most tender boudoir scenes in the whole series have included those with Renly Baratheon and Loras Tyrell, and it’s a (depressingly) somewhat new and progressive thing that in a fantasy series a homosexual relationship can be depicted as healthy and affectionate between two relatively virtuous (compared to other members of their respective families) and heroic characters, rather than being a perversion or decadent indulgence indulged in by the likes of the High Septon.

But my family is generally comfortable with nudity, and I imagine much of the titillation factor is lost on me simply because nudity is a day-to-day factor in my everyday life, and thus most of the exoticism of it has been leached away. When it feels weird to me are those moments when societal norms must be met and are artificially imposed upon the scene. As a spoilerific for-instance: When we saw Tommen Baratheon, the first of his name, in post-coital conversation with his new Queen Margaery a couple weeks ago, we never saw Natalie Dormer naked in that scene, because she couldn’t be: at the time it was filmed, Dean-Charles Chapman was obviously underage. And so that scene was almost as tame as if it had been filmed for NBC, which felt artificial and distracting given the overall flavor of the show, but that’s what comes with the territory. Certainly the TV show didn’t go out of its way to portray Daenerys as a 13-year-old virgin as Martin wrote her in the books, since that would be a bridge too far for a TV series.

Yes indeedy.

I’d still watch it, but I like it better the way they do it. The horrors of war should be horrific, I think, and if characters are going to be fighting this violently to obtain the Iron Throne (or indeed any scrap of power over others that they can grab… the title of the show in microcosm sometimes), I think it helps reinforce the show’s point for the audience to see it. Some of the nudity I think is plot- or character-motivated (Melisandre’s in particular) and thus dramatically valuable, but even the set-dressing variety (with whores lounging about in Littlefinger’s brothel, etc.) is often not without some justification. But then, I don’t tune in to see whose bewbz are going to be on display next. If I want to ogle, there are other, more time-efficient avenues to wankery. People who think there’s too much nudity in the show are certainly welcome to that opinion, but I happen to disagree.

If there isn’t, there should be. I’d be happier if there were more naked men on the show if only to keep a reasonable balance. I suppose there’s an argument to be made that in this show, men are more inclined to use their brawn (if they have any) and/or their wits (if they have any) to get ahead (or just to stay alive), whereas women are obliged to use their wits and/or their desirability for those same ends (with the exception that proves the rule of Brienne of Tarth). And that would explain a lot of it, both the violence and the cheesecake. Nonetheless, having more beefcake and sausage in the show would only help to justify (or at least help provide a figurative figleaf for) all the female T&A.

4 Likes
145

The narrative points to women being more than just objects, but the T&A objectifying women displays the hypocrisy in that narrative (or points to a hypocrisy that shouldn’t exist visually if it doesn’t exist narratively)

There is no hypocrisy here, there is absolutely nothing incompatible with portraying realistic, complex female characters, and also using sexualised female beauty for purely aesthetic reasons. You can have one or both aspects represented in the same individual character, or you can have each aspect with separate characters, and the latter doesn’t take away from the former in any way (all combinations are present in the show). The fact that the male characters in the show are also used in the same ways is why this isn’t sexism. The fact that latter aspect is represented at all is merely a matter of taste.

It suggests that the story is weak enough to NEED gratuitous T&A

As I mentioned in another comment, T&A doesn’t require justification (though in many cases there may be ample justification - a scene in a brothel for example), it need be nothing more than a stylistic choice. The story is certainly not weak enough to require it (have you actually watched the show, or read the books?!), and would probably work fine without it (or toned down a good deal), but for people who enjoy being visually stimulated in this way it’s a nice bonus (annoying people with poorly evidenced dogmatic belief systems is another bonus).

It suggests that the motive of the viewers is largely to get their rocks off looking at T&A.

That’s just one of the many aspects of the show, why must it be all or nothing?

It reinforces the idea that women are FOR T&A, whatever else they might be for.

But women are for T&A, and men are sexual objects in the minds of straight women and gay men in exactly the same way, nothing in the show suggests that’s solely what either are for.

And it does all this to an audience who, judging by your own replies, is critically fucking ignorant of the social effects of media.

And what is it you think the social effects of media are exactly? I’m well aware there are many opinions on the matter, but very little in the way of facts. In fact, mostly when people try and do actual qualitative research into the various theories that social ‘scientists’ come up with, there’s very little evidence to back them up (in fact, usually evidence to the contrary).

I mean, educate yourself a little before you shoot off your internet-mouth.

lol, the ironing.

3 Likes
146

I assume you mean me, since you’re responding to yourself?

Yes, that’s the core issue. That being said, there are plenty of feminists who argue that self-objectiication can be empowering. There is some validity to that argument, but when you have a culture that consistently presents women as being objects, who are there for the taking, that’s at the very least, worth discussion. That doesn’t have to mean an end to porn, or sexiness, or men thinking women are sexy (which of course, all men don’t even do that), or what have you. What it means is at the very least being cognizant that there are some dynamics involved in how women are expected to behave/conform in our society, and realize that, yes the media can play a role in reinforcing these views of women and their relationship to men.

2 Likes
147

Viewing another person as a sexual object is both morally acceptable and normal. Viewing all men or women as nothing more than sexual objects is both abnormal and morally unacceptable.

Let’s not conflate the two.

3 Likes
148

You did make me feel momentarily ashamed. Then I realized why: you were being shitty. I just shared the process with everyone.

150

I agree with all of your general points here. In context, however, I contend that GoT is primarily a cheap thrill ride and that gratuitous nudity is quite appropriate in it. I also contend, in relationship to the original article, that calling people perverts is a very bad way to go about introducing the discussion.

I also realize that precisely because the establishment is and has for so long been lop sided that the impact of gratuitous nudity can be significantly more extreme on women in society. For instance, I don’t think the calls to simply “increase male nudity proportionately” address the underlying problems that do exist regarding depictions of women and sexuality in media. However, i don’t think Siede addressed these, I think the article was primarily a demonization of sexuality, not a constructive review of gender identity as affected by objectification.

1 Like
151

Evolutionary psychology would also dictate that I use physical force against somebody I disagree with. Yet, I strive to go beyond those impulses, and use my brain.

Do you agree or disagree with such strivings?

Because I do think that people who would use evolution as an excuse for their behavior are looking for an excuse for their behavior.

5 Likes
152

In the spirit of being non sensical, since I have no new perspectives on this issue, may I present a Nicolas Cage Sexy Cat.

…

153

Something About Mary?

154

Here’s some prior art on how the violence could be replaced:

5 Likes
155

I think she used “pervert” because the producers used that term, so there is that. I believe that’s why she employed the term. Nor do I think she’s demonizing sexuality at all and am not sure where you got that impression. If you read what she says, she’s okay with the sex in the show, because it’s in the source material, and of course, human beings are sexual (except of course, for the ones who aren’t), but she’s talking about a specific aspect of the show and the back ground characters specifically.

Maybe you’re correct about the show’ being a cheap thrill, sadly, as I enjoy the source material very much and think there is tons of great character development and world building that goes on in the books.

4 Likes
156

Well, that’s very nuanced and somewhat confusing. It sounds a bit like “what you are doing is wrong, but don’t worry. You won’t necessarily have to change; we just want to tell you it’s wrong, and maybe you’ll change on your own.”

157

Let’s say someone makes you angry and you have an urge to hit them. You act on the urge. That’s considered socially unacceptable, destructive and you are rightly discouraged from it. People telling you that’s wrong would be making a perfectly reasonable statement.

But let’s look at it more in context to the article. Say someone does something that makes you angry, legitimately, they’ve just been huge dicks. And you have the urge to strike them. But you refrain. However, someone tells you that just by feeling that urge, that makes you a psychopath. That wouldn’t be fair or reasonable, anger is a normal, healthy emotion.

158

Why bother? You’re obviously not listening.

159

Pfft, don’t use physical force. Pay someone on craigslist to ductape and zip tie them when they are sleeping.

(Can I get a signature that states, Never Ever Do What I Say?)

1 Like
160

I get it from her very words. She’s “surprised” more men aren’t insulted that they’re provided with something that’s sexually enjoyable. She calls them perverts. Maybe someone else said it first, what’s relevant is that she is saying, straight up, that I am a pervert for liking female nudity and I should be insulted by its inclusion in a show like Game of Thrones. That reads fundamentally as demonization of sexuality to me.

161

According to my lady friends, if it was Alexander Skarsgard, yes.

162

Perverts is the wrong word. Objectification is the right one.

(Shit, @anon61221983 did I just mansplain something? Well, back to the cheese cave for me)

4 Likes
163

But then why is nudity what’s the focus? As I stated above, would the prostitutes in the high septom scene be any less sexually objectified if they had some pieces of cloth wrapped around their waist and chest? No, not a bit, so this to me demonstrates that the issue is less about objectification and more about nudity and sexuality.

I’ll also stand by the statement that extras should be objectified, as they are OBJECTS!

164

Well, life isn’t simple is it, nor is talking about popular culture and the role in plays in society. If there were simple answers to these questions, we wouldn’t NEED to work through them, right? We could all just catch up at the pub, or whatever.

I think it’s a bit problematic to assume that consumers of popular culture are all just uncritically accepting the meanings provided for them. People make interesting use of the culture they find interesting. @CarolineSiede finds one aspect of the show problematic, she’s presented her reasons why. I think it’s fine to disagree with her, while accepting that others are going to agree with her and argue against you.

I do have a problem with the whole “we should NEVER address these issues because it’s just nature” mindset, because no, it’s not. Culture is indeed in the process of reinforcing the ruling ideology, but culture can also be employed in subversive ways. So yeah, its’ complicated and contradictory, but as Whitman said, “Do I contradict myself, very well, I contradict myself…”

4 Likes