A more appropriate reward is suggestive? Did you read the letter from him afterwards? He sends you some goodies from the Arcanist Hall, he's not offering sex.
It seems people are looking for something to be there. Like I said, it's possible to read those lines in the way you propose, but all things equal, I don't think that it's the likeliest interpretation. There's nothing to suggest that his attitude is anything different from that of a master over his slave: heck, the pet business was remarked upon by Fenris as soon as you get him into his part. He leashed Fenris to mock qunari custom towards their mages. Do you imply that qunari custom also involves sexual abuse of their mages?
The principle of parsimony suggests the likeliest explanation is the best, and sexual abuse is a stretch when we already have explanations for all of the name calling, for the remark about his skills, and for the reward.
It's fine if you don't see anything there, but no concrete evidence exists that it never happened. Until then, sexual abuse is still up in the air for discussionThat's nice, but that's not at all what I said. You can discuss it all you want: I'm just saying it's more unlikely than likely, and therefore doesn't rise to the level of ambiguity (where two possibilities are equally plausible).
PoisonTheCity wrote...
Emperor Iaius I wrote...
Yeah, because there was a time where he competed for the lyrium runes. There was also a time before he was with those rebels on Seheron. That's what Danarius is talking about. Why on earth would he care about Fenris's affection if he were sexually abusive?
It could be interpreted either way, given the creeper voice the guy used. I just don't see a slave being affectionate towards a master like Danarius if it hadn't been ordered, and I don't see a man like Danarius ordering affection in terms of 'be nice to me'. The way he used it seemed more like a mocking euphemism to me, but as I said, it is open to interpretation.
The entire matter is open to interpretation until a writer says 'it was written this way'. All I said was, given the circumstances and what we know, it is entirely possible.
Stockholm syndrome. Or something less sinister, if you prefer. Slaves in antiquity internalized their social position and absorbed the constant negative reinforcement. It's hard for someone today to understand because we've had independence and personal self-worth drilled into us from the start, but remember that this wasn't always the case. In Tevinter, the existence of slaves is a fact of life: somebody born into that system wouldn't know any better. In such a situation, the slightest showing of appreciation from one's master would be grounds for immense gratitude, no matter how harsh the master already was.
It's a psychological thing.
Or, alternatively, we can look at situations in antiquity where a person's body slave was their closest friend and confidant. They were treated much better than other slaves (and indeed, domestic slaves were generally treated quite well) and though they were property, they were essentially considered part of the family. This relationship seems unlikely here, given that Danarius seems to enjoy putting him down, but it's worth mentioning as another example of where a slave would feel affection for a master.
While slaves were generally sexually available to their masters becaused they lacked the legal ability to withhold consent, that doesn't mean that this happened to all slaves or that this was the only thing that bound a master to his slave. Fenris was valuable, and it's possible Danarius did see him as one might see a beloved pet.
One loves a dog, after all, without having sexual relations with it. I really hope so, anyway.
Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 15 avril 2011 - 07:14 .
Retour en haut
when Danarius taunted Fenris - I immediately jumped to the sexual mischief conclusion. Possibly because I had already pondered it after Fenris freaked out post-smexings and said something about "starting to remember". 
