How much of the fondness for Damane is genuine?

[Tsukibana]

Isn't there a passage (I think it would have to be in TGH) where Egwene is told of some Sul'dams having sex with "their" damane? The person telling Eg was quite disgusted with the practice.

 

Tuon says that to Mat when she catches him in the damane quarters, plotting to free Joline & crew (can't recall if Joline was actually captured, no source with me...).

Mat claims he was repaying a favor she (the AS) did for him, and Tuon is glad he shows kindness, and then talks about those who lie with damane.

[Hagazussa]

Tuon says that to Mat when she catches him in the damane quarters,

plotting to free Joline & crew (can't recall if Joline was actually

captured, no source with me...).

Mat claims he was repaying a favor she (the AS) did for him, and Tuon

is glad he shows kindness, and then talks about those who lie with

damane.

 

I think the excuse he used was that a captured Sea Folk channeler had done him a favor a while back and he wanted to see if she wanted him to smuggle her some pastries from the kitchens. But yes but as far as I know the ones Tuon mentioned that would sleep with damane where not sul'dam but men, however like I said I would bet good money that it do happens now and again that sul'dam and damane have sexual relations with one another, with or without the damane's consent.

[Tsukibana]

@Haga: Correct, it WAS a Seafolk Windfinder. Forced damane pillow friends??

[jedman67]

 

Then... what do they think female chanelers are gonna do if left uncollared?

They think they are going to take over the place and become tyrants, or use their abilities willy nilly and hurt people.

 

When Luthair Pendrag and his armies first started to conquer Seanchan, there were AS with each faction, country and army. Seanchan Aes Sedai were crafty, devious and power hungry. If there was a high level assasination; you could be sure there was an AS involved. The Seanchan Aes Sedai were not part of the White Tower, they had never taken the three oaths. They ruled, sometimes openly, sometimes behind the scenes, in order to grab as much power as they could. One of the Aes Sedai, who I believe traveled with Luthair Pendrag's army; invented the a'dam in order to provide a tool for Hawkwings armies in their quest for the Consolidation.

The Seanchan bitterly remembered ruthless Aes Sedai trying to meddle and control everything, for generations; which led to a cultural distrust of channelers and the concept of marathdamane. (source is an RJ quote somewhere)

 

 

Isn't there a passage (I think it would have to be in TGH) where Egwene is told of some Sul'dams having sex with "their" damane? The person telling Eg was quite disgusted with the practice.

 

Tuon says that to Mat when she catches him in the damane quarters, plotting to free Joline & crew (can't recall if Joline was actually captured, no source with me...).

Mat claims he was repaying a favor she (the AS) did for him, and Tuon is glad he shows kindness, and then talks about those who lie with damane.

Teslyn and Edesina. Sleeping with a damane is like sleeping with a dog or child, in the Seanchan POV

[Hagazussa]

Teslyn and Edesina. Sleeping with a damane is like sleeping with a dog or child, in the Seanchan POV

 

That make me wonder if it is illegal, if said a sul'dam who have sex with an willing or unwilling damane could be punished for it. I guess it is illegal for a man to break in and have fun with the chained up goodies but if it was that damane's own sul'dam that did so, or the noble o rich man or woman who owned her. Off course it would be frowned upon, but would it be illegal if found out?

[RugbyPlayingAshaman]

No, they do not. The sul'dam don't consider damane human, so their concern is limited by their lack of sympathy. A sul'dam might cry because of the residual loss of the connection formed by the a'dam and her familiarity with the damane, but it is more similar to how an owner might feel if their obedient dog died. And the relationship to a slave and a master never leads to a balanced relationship; even 'good' slaves might have been broken or be somewhat happy as a result of being treated favorably compared to other slaves. 

[Hagazussa]

No, they do not. The sul'dam don't consider damane human, so their concern is limited by their lack of sympathy.

 

I have allot of sympathy and love for my pet cat even if I do not consider her human. Hell I even care about my pet spider and I definitely do not consider her human. That the sul'dam do not consider the damane to be human do not have to mean they do not care about them, it just mean they do not care about them as they would another human being.

 

A sul'dam might cry because of the residual loss of the connection

formed by the a'dam and her familiarity with the damane, but it is more

similar to how an owner might feel if their obedient dog died.

 

I agree but that sul'dam see damane more like someone look at a favored pet, but the concern is still real. It might not be the same type of love or concern one have for another human being, but it is still concern, fondness or even love. I mean I love that cat of mine, she is a cat, she is my property and I do not love her like I do my mother or my hubby, but I deeply care about her and love her and I want her to be happy, that is real fondness even if it is not the same kind of fondness I have for human family or friends, I think it is the same thing with sul'dam.

 

And the relationship to a slave and a master never leads to a balanced

relationship; even 'good' slaves might have been broken or be somewhat

happy as a result of being treated favorably compared to other slaves.

 

I agree the relationship between a master or in this case a mistress and a slave is not a balanced and equal one. However I do not think there need to be equality there for there to be real fondness and even love. Now there need to be equality for there to be fairness, and I am not defending the practice of holding damane, but I still think that the sul'dam, from their mindset honestly care about the damane's well being and many of them are truly fond of them or even love them, and that many damane feel the same for their sul'dam, though off course such a love is never equal.

[Thrasymachus]

Genuine to who?  The feelings sul'dam have for damane are genuine for the sul'dam.  She really feels those things.  But they are disingenuous for the damane, because they treat her as something she is not, which is to say, a dangerous, if tamed, animal.

[Hagazussa]

Genuine to who?  The feelings sul'dam have for damane are genuine for the sul'dam.  She really feels those things.  But they are disingenuous for the damane, because they treat her as something she is not, which is to say, a dangerous, if tamed, animal.

 

Genuine to the sul'dam. I mean if I kidnap my lover and is convinced that by keeping him chained up in the basement our love will blossom again my emotion is genuine, it is destructive yes, but it is genuine. I am not saying that the sul'dam's feelings for their damane make the practice of holding channelers as pets any better, but I still think the emotions are real. In fact I think those feelings of fondness make holding damane even worse. I mean look at the scene where Egwene get captured by Renna. If Renna had been just aggressive and cruel it would in many ways have been a less chilling scene, it would be Egwene being captured by someone who want ill on her again, scary yes but far more like when she and Perrin get kidnapped by the Whitecloaks, but that Renna treat her like a confused dog that needs to be tamed, with a kind if firm hand, that just make that scene fa more emotional and chilling than if Egwene had just been a captive, that Renna can take someone into slavery that she do not hate, do not have negative feelings for, that is worse in many ways in my mind than the Whitecloaks fanaticism.

[Thrasymachus]

And that's just what I said.  "Genuine" doesn't just mean "real."  It also carries connotations having to do with "Truth."  The feelings are "real" because the sul'dam really feels them, but they are not "true" because they are predicated upon a falsehood, that damane are mere animals that need to be tamed and trained or else they are too dangerous.

[Hagazussa]

And that's just what I said.  "Genuine" doesn't just mean "real."  It also carries connotations having to do with "Truth."  The feelings are "real" because the sul'dam really feels them, but they are not "true" because they are predicated upon a falsehood, that damane are mere animals that need to be tamed and trained or else they are too dangerous.

 

How are the feelings not true? Feelings have nothing to do with morality, or whatever or not they are based on something that is right or wrong or whatever or not they are for good or ill, they just are. The sul'dam's feelings are true, even if those feelings are based on their own assumptions which might be false. It is like this, if I think that bigfoot is waiting in the other room to eat me my fear of being eaten by an oversize, half human, snow ape is real and true even if the assumption of said creature being in the house turns out to be false. All human emotion is based on perception and instinct, it is based on assumption and whatever or not those assumptions are true or not do not change that they are true emotions.

[Thrasymachus]

We could argue all weekend over what amounts to semantics.  The term "genuine" has various different meanings in different contexts, some of which include normative or moral connotations.  To assert that its meaning in one context is the same as its meaning in a different context is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.  I've already explained how a sul'dam's feelings of fondness for their damane can be seen as genuine in one context, and not-genuine in a different, equally valid context.

[Hagazussa]

I see what you are saying, but I still hold to my opinion that an emotion is an emotion no matter what others might think about the morality of it and whatever that emotion is based on a true assumption or not. Emotion is something a given person feel, and when they feel it that emotion it is true for them, even if the reason for the feeling is false, that is not semantics, it is straight up do person A really feel this? Then the feelings are felt, the morality of it is secondary, it do not figure into the consideration on whatever person A truly feel something or not. The genuine or not in this question are not whatever or not the sul'dam is right in their feelings and if the feelings are based on truth, but whatever or not they are just pretending to be feeling something for their charges or if they are actually feeling fondness for them, and I think they actually feel that fondness and therefore the feeling are genuine even if basis for such feelings are on shaky grounds.

[Rhienne]

I think it has been established quite well from the books that Damane are essentially on the level of pets.  I think this isn't the clearest analogy as people look at pets in many different ways.  Some people see pets as something to use (e.g gun dogs, guard dogs) and only value them because of the services they can provide (although there are many dog handlers who also form a bond with their animals).  At the other end of the spectrum there are people who treat their pets like children and believe they have the same rights (where possible/practical/safe) and deserve the same respect as humans.  I think that different sul'dam will view their damane differently, but I don't believe any of them are at the far-equality end of that spectrum.

[Hagazussa]

You do not need to view an animal as equal to you to love them. I mean I do not see my cat Maude as a human being, and in most ways I do not see her as equal to me. Being Pagan I do think that all life is equal in the eyes of the Goddess and God but that is something a bit different. Maude is a cat, an animal and I do own her, but I still care very much about her happiness and well being. I have also grown up in a place where many live on farms and have hunting and other working dogs, they seldom see the dogs as their babies and seldom see them as equal, hell I would go so far as to say it is not good for an animal to be treated as a furry human, but even so most do care about said animals.

 

The way I see that the sul'dam treat their damane is mostly as working animals, some like Seta (was not that the one that made Egwene feel like she was being boiled alive?) is very stern and distant, she only see them as useful animals, but some like Renna is more friendly while some of the sul'dam we have seen have had a more friendship or motherly tone with their damane. I do not think any of them view damane as equal though, but many do seam quite concerned that the damane is well, like the one who was sad she had to recommend that the will of a captured Aes Sedai be broken or the one that handled Tuon's fortune teller Lidya (was the damane's name I think.) that sul'dam is not happy that she had to punish Lidya and seam to be honestly happy when Tuon tell her to give the damane herbs for her pain and treats to make her feel better, that do seam like real caring to me, even if she probably never saw Lidya as an equal that sul'am did not like to see her in pain or upset and much less to be the cause of that pain.

[Thrasymachus]

The difference, of course, being that your feelings for your cat are entirely appropriate to that kind of entity, where the sul'dam's similar feelings for damane are not appropriate to the kind of life a damane is, but in fact demean them. 

[EmperorAllspice]

but is it demeaning if they themselves don't know that

 

The whole "is a slave a slave if he doesn't know that he's enslaved?" thing except in this case it's more "is a slave being demeaned if the slave is both willing and totally agrees that being demeaned is how they should be treated?"

[Suttree]

The whole "is a slave a slave if he doesn't know that he's enslaved?" thing except in this case it's more "is a slave being demeaned if the slave is both willing and totally agrees that being demeaned is how they should be treated?"

 But they don't start out that way. Their entire identity is erased and they are reprogrammed if you will.

[EmperorAllspice]

but a lot of Damane are raised in that culture. and in a culture like that I think a lot of Damane would go along with the Suldam perfectly willingly even from the very beginning. I reckon there are those who even run straight to the nearest Sul'dam they can find as soon as they realise they can channel.

[Suttree]

Yeah there could be a few like that but surely not every 15 year old feels that way. Imagine the horror of waking up one day and being yanked away from your family and everything you have known. Having your entire identity up until that point erased. They then begin the process of being turned into something sub-human.

 

Keep in mind the Seanchan have heavy propaganda but not everyone buys into it. We see this mainly with all their talk of unity, stability and a happy populace when in reality there are almost constant rebellions and sedition.

[EmperorAllspice]

Then how come there's no Aiel male channeler who goes nuts and kills people. They ALL go off and kill themselves in the Blight?

[Thrasymachus]

but is it demeaning if they themselves don't know that

 

The whole "is a slave a slave if he doesn't know that he's enslaved?" thing except in this case it's more "is a slave being demeaned if the slave is both willing and totally agrees that being demeaned is how they should be treated?"

Yes, that's why slavery is a violation of basic human rights in the first place.  Not only do people not have the right to treat other people as property, people don't have the right to treat themselves as property.  Damane who voluntarily subjugate themselves demean themselves.

 

What happens to male Aiel channelers is irrelevant.  They're not treating themselves, nor is anybody in their society, treating them as anything other than what they really are.

[Suttree]

They ALL go off and kill themselves in the Blight?

Heh RAFO.

 

Regardless they are vastly different cultures and situations.

[EmperorAllspice]

 

but is it demeaning if they themselves don't know that

 

The whole "is a slave a slave if he doesn't know that he's enslaved?" thing except in this case it's more "is a slave being demeaned if the slave is both willing and totally agrees that being demeaned is how they should be treated?"

Yes, that's why slavery is a violation of basic human rights in the first place.  Not only do people not have the right to treat other people as property, people don't have the right to treat themselves as property.  Damane who voluntarily subjugate themselves demean themselves.

 

What happens to male Aiel channelers is irrelevant.  They're not treating themselves, nor is anybody in their society, treating them as anything other than what they really are.

Violation of human rights by OUR standards. and the standards of Randland. Can we really call our human rights the epitome of all human rights in anything ever?

[Thrasymachus]

Are you suggesting that slavery is a preferable social institution than freedom?