Outlander discussion

Sara wrote: "Hi Kat and Sage, Sage, I replied to your comment in error.  I meant to reply to the discussio..."

I totally get where you are coming from Sara. I don't think that it is common in romance novels today, I'm not sure I really don't read them, but at the time that the novel was written it was very very common, especially in historical romance novels. Just to clairfy is the difference you are trying to talk about the difference between an abuse fetish (like someone who in a safe environment gets a fake beating for being "bad") and actual abuse? I think I might have just missed what you are trying to say. :/ sorry my fault.

Mrsbooks when I replied to you asking about Claire's opinion about children being beaten I was including the incident on the ridge simply because it was a father and his unmarried daughter (which ties into the whole owning thing because legally, not morally or in anyother way but in the eyes of the law (and for some that is what mattered) at the time her "ownership" had not crossed to another person). Claire does get upset when she sees or hears about Jamie beating Fergus in the second book but does not say anything because, IMO she feels that it is not her place to tell him how to discipline the child. I think it definitely would have come up had Faith survived.

Kat the only reason I called the incident on the ridge a beating not a spanking was because that is what they called it in the books. I also totally agree with you about Claire never really forgiving Jamie. I think there are those things that make you really upset in a relationship and time goes by other things happen and it becomes a chore to stay angry and eventually you just forget about it. That doesn't mean that you forgive them but it become harder to live your life holding onto that anger than it would be to just move on. I definitely don't think she ever forgave him but I think it just sort of dissolves with all of the other stuff that is going on.

Maddie wrote: "Sara wrote: "Hi Kat and Sage, Sage, I replied to your comment in error.  I meant to reply to the discussio..."

I totally get where you are coming from Sara. I don't think that it is common in roma..."
Hi Maddie!

I saw many correlations in the Daily Beast article to several points made and others I read in the spoilers Mrsbooks posted. I feels like the article could have been the single source of inspiration for the authors take on how men beat women and the women who hate them, enjoy them or seek to bolster their husbands limp ego with them.

In the Daily Beast article, a councilor is states that the population that enjoys spanking, should just say so and get on with it in a safe and concenual way. Those would be the population like Jamie's sister. Also their is a population that ascribe to maintenance spanking so she knows who is boss - that would be Ian facilitated by Jenny by our author. The last would be Claire vigorously resisting harm and Jamie enjoying it. Athens Daily Beast charachersizes this as Disturbing. I too find Jamie's arousal and pleasure at Claire's painful struggle disturbing.

Before the shouts of whitwhashing, censoring, etc are flung at me, allow me to say enjoy all who will, i just don't .

It's nice to chat with you Maddie, you must lurk in the background reading now and then like I do. My posts are not formatted as well as others, but I do this from my phone, and I just can't seem to get the font to take. ,-b

Sara wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Sara wrote: "Hi Kat and Sage, Sage, I replied to your comment in error.  I meant to reply to the discussio...""

Now I get what you are saying. I must have missed that article that was posted. I agree with you that is very interesting.

It is nice to chat with you too. I do lurk in the background a lot. I have put my two cents in a long time ago and don't really like saying the same things over and over again. But I read what people say. Mostly I don't respond to much because by the time I get back on like 30 post are between what I said and the next time I am available to read.

Sara wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Sara wrote: "Hi Kat and Sage, Sage, I replied to your comment in error.  I meant to reply to the discussio..."

I totally get where you are coming from Sara. I don't think that it is..."

I messed up the order there, but to tough to edit on the phone. Claire=hates them. Jamie's sister=loves them. Jenny takes one for team "Insecure Man"

Maddie wrote: "Sara wrote: "Maddie wrote: "Sara wrote: "Hi Kat and Sage, Sage, I replied to your comment in error.  I meant to reply to the discussio...""

Now I get what you are saying. I must have missed that a..."

It was all the Corpral Punsishment dialog in Mrsbooks post that reminded me of an article I read on domestic discipline at Huffington Post. When I went looking for it, this article from the Daily Beast popped up and I went with it because of the I Love Lucy image that disturbs me yet tickles so many others.

http://thebea.st/YGaHM7

I was raised in a religious household. (There were 3 different religions going on simultaneously, actually!) What the Daily Beast article references was never in any of the religious instructions or teachings that I have ever been exposed to.

I think I will choose to be flippant and dismissive of this article. It seems rather absurd to me. I'm inclined to think that the couples practicing this more likely have deep rooted and suppressed BDSM proclivities that they possibly do not feel that their religious beliefs allow them to explore openly and this is used as the "scapegoat".

Jim Alsdurf, a forensic psychologist who evaluates and treats sexual psychopaths and is the author of a book on abuse in Christian homes, says CDD isn’t about religion—it’s an outlet for emotionally disturbed men with intimacy deficits.

I agree....not with his labeling the participants as "emotionally disturbed". This may or may not be true. I don't want to demonize the practice of BDSM and give the impression that it is somehow "deviant" in some way. However, I do agree that this the CDD practice mentioned in the article is merely an "outlet" for something else. These people want to engage in a practice and don't feel that they can do so "legitimately" and "authentically"...so this is how they manage to do it.

It's hard to explain the comedy of "I Love Lucy". Lucy was not the only show that featured acts of "domestic spankings" for comedic effect. It was in movies, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIp3V...

I found this scene even funnier that the Lucy episodes.

...the full movie is available here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGX2G...

Mochaspresso wrote: "I was raised in a religious household. (There were 3 different religions going on simultaneously, actually!) What the Daily Beast article references was never in any of the religious instructions o..."

I find labels regarding sexual activity difficult to define anyways. For instance numerous times I get the feeling of the Dom/Sub play from Jamie and Claire however not to the point that I would *say* they're into that. Know what I mean? Labels help us categorize things in our minds into these little slots to help us understand them but soooo many things just don't fit into those labels.

Reply to comment # 1113 Kat wrote: "

Well, that's apparently what I get when trying to rush some comments before I head to work without thinking them through. Now I think I'll take my foot out of my mouth. *Coughs*

Ok, I didn't actually mean I find a person being owned amusing in relation to *anything and everything* which is how my comment sounded. Oopsies. At the time, I was actually only thinking about how Jamie felt he and Claire owned each other and I was thinking of the times this expression is used in modern day romances.

But I'm glad I amused you ;)

Mochaspresso wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x..."

McLintock! I love that movie and I thought that was hilarious.

Kat wrote: "Oh, and you didn't have the will to resist. :) ..."

Exactly...even though I promised myself that I wouldn't eat snacks, they looked good, I was having coffee, and gave in to temptation...just like Claire.
She saw an opportunity and even though she had made a promise not to leave, she left, because she didn't have the will to resist.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I find the idea of "owning" someone amusing. I think it's one of those things that mean something different to everyone. If we read a romance novel of a guy saying he owns his woman or that she bel..."

I understand what you're saying, but I've never felt I owned anyone, not my husband, or my children, I do however own my pets. I own them because I bought and paid for them and they are totally dependent on me and they can't leave. They can run away, but I'll find them and bring them home.

I do however, like you said, feel my husband belongs to me. He's my partner, my lover, and my best friend, but I don't own him. He's here by his own free will, because he choses to be.

Kat Post 1088:
Kat wrote: "No, that's not what you said. In your original message 1018, you wrote: "As for Claire breaking her promise not to see Geillis, Jamie told her to stay away, but I'm not sure Claire promised she would.
And, returning to Frank and her own time was still Clair's priority, which made Geillis of interest to her.
...you said nothing in that post, or subsequent posts until this one about "because Claire went to her when she received the note." Just clarifying here you see...I wouldn't want to be accused of deliberately misinterpreting anything to derail or subvert any discussion.


My Post 1018: And, returning to Frank and her own time was still Clair's priority, which made Geillis of interest to her.

My Post 1036: As for Geillis, I believe I said 'I'm not sure" Claire promised. Also, I never said Claire knew Geillis was from the future, what I said was 'Geillis was of interest to Claire'. Which obviously she was because Claire went to her when she received the note, regardless of what she felt earlier.

I believe 1036 was a subsequent post.

I won't accuse you of "deliberately misinterpreting anything to derail or subvert any discussion" because there are so many posts and copies of posts it's difficult to follow and sometimes even remember what one did actually say when...I'm just clarifying here.

Oh yes, one more thing I'd like to clarify, when you gave your definition of abusive...you left out the words "especially regularly or repeatedly". The same applies with the definition of "abuser: someone who regularly or habitually abuses someone or something, in particular". Jamie didn't regularly or repeatedly treat Claire with cruelty or violence. He punished her once. He made a decision that was not acceptable, but he is not an abuser.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Accidents are things that just happen. Sometimes it is no one's fault and other times, they happen due to negligence on someone's part. I don't know the full circumstances of your grandson's accident (I hope his is ok, btw). I don't what caused it or who's fault it is or whether it was no one's fault at all. However, I do know that his going to school IS NOT what caused the accident..
.."

I understand this may not be a good comparison to Claire leaving the copse because my grandson wasn't disobeying anyone.

I guess my point was that every decision we make has a consequence. And once we make the decision, the result is our fault, or our reward. In Claire's case her decision to leave the copse was the cause of the events that followed. In my grandson's case, his decision to pass a truck in the rain (he hydroplaned) was the cause of the events that followed, upset parents, no car, insurance increase. And, yes, thankfully he was fine and no other vehicles were involved.

So I can't agree that if Jamie hadn't left Claire in the copse she wouldn't have decided to leave, anymore then I can agree that if school hadn't scheduled classes, my grandson wouldn't have been driving and decided to pass.

Sage wrote: "Exactly...even though I promised myself that I wouldn't eat snacks, they looked good, I was having coffee, and gave in to temptation...just like Claire.
She saw an opportunity and even though she had made a promise not to leave, she left, because she didn't have the will to resist. "

But now imagine if someone had been standing guard over the cookies and slapped your hand every time you reached for one. Would you have been able to eat one then?

If there had been a man left to guard Claire, would she have even been able to give in to temptation to leave? I don't think so.

Sage wrote: "Kat Post 1088:
Kat wrote: "No, that's not what you said. In your original message 1018, you wrote: "As for Claire breaking her promise not to see Geillis, Jamie told her to stay away, but I'm not s..."

Sorry I missed that. I did get confused with all the posts.

Getting back to the main idea: Still, I don't think Claire, at that point, had any idea that Gellis could help her get back to the stones. And that was my point.

Oh yes, one more thing I'd like to clarify, when you gave your definition of abusive...you left out the words "especially regularly or repeatedly". The same applies with the definition of "abuser: someone who regularly or habitually abuses someone or something, in particular". Jamie didn't regularly or repeatedly treat Claire with cruelty or violence. He punished her once. He made a decision that was not acceptable, but he is not an abuser.

I got my definition from Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio.... which did not include the phrase. I see the "especially regularly or repeatedly" on the oxford diction definition. However, "especially regularly or repeatedly" does not mean ONLY regularly or repeatedly. Even one time can be considered abuse. So the definition is valid.

Abuser: Well, you also left out: Definition of abuser in English:noun
1A person who uses something to bad effect or for a bad purpose: (
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/def...)

Notice it does not also have to include "especially regularly or repeatedly" and even if it did, that still does not mean ONLY regularly or repeatedly.

Especially: (from the oxford dictionary) Used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others:
he despised them all, especially Sylvester

Or how about: Men who beat women are abusers, especially those who do it regularly or repeatedly.

In this instance, Jamie was an abuser. It is what it is.

Sara wrote: "Kat wrote: "Sage wrote: "Sara, this article has nothing to do with my opinion of Jamie and Claire..."

Sara, I think you pointed out some excellent correlations between the article and the spoilers that Mrsbooks posted. I really need to think about it all some more before I post anything more in depth. There was another one I thought of last night, but now Argh! I can't remember it. :)

Oh! Yeah..the part (view spoiler)[ where Jamie is saying he didn't care enough to beat Laoghaire (hide spoiler)] really made me think of the last paragraph of that article.

Enjoyable or not, a woman fighting against a painful spanking; quote from article, "And then there are posts that are just plain disturbing: “My wife cries and writhes and begs me to stop during spankings, should I?”

Well, in a fictional story with time-travel, that could have been Jamie right there, couldn't it?

The I Love Lucy, imagery isn't amusing in an domestic abuse context.

I definitely don't think it is the right analogy to use here.

I have seen many I Love Lucy episodes. And really enjoyed them. Can't remember ever really even thinking the parts where Ricky spanked Lucy as 'funny' though.

I love John Wayne movies. Grew up watching them with my father. That scene in McClintock always made me cringe, even though it was supposed to be funny. I never thought it was. Is that Bad feminism? I don't think so. It was my father, sitting next to me while we watched the movie, who spanked me himself, who said "don't you ever let a man do that to you." He knew the difference between a parent disciplining their child and a husband inappropriately 'disciplining' his wife.

Maddie wrote: "I totally get where you are coming from Sara. I don't think that it is common in romance novels today, I'm not sure I really don't read them, but at the time that the novel was written it was very very common, especially in historical romance novels. Just to clairfy is the difference you are trying to talk about the difference between an abuse fetish (like someone who in a safe environment gets a fake beating for being "bad") and actual abuse? I think I might have just missed what you are trying to say. :/ sorry my fault.

Not sure if this is what you or Sara were talking about, but I think there is definitely a difference between the "BDSM" type of spanking where it's consensual and there are safe words, etc. and what Jamie does to Claire. The BDSM type seems more like what (view spoiler)[Jenny and Ian do. (hide spoiler)] And that's fine if that's what they are into. I really don't like the dubiousness of it in regards to Jamie and Claire's relationship. If they are, then they are. If not, don't even go there.

I also think (didn't read a lot of them back then) the non-consensual kind was more prevalent in romance novels back in the 80s and 90s.

Claire does get upset when she sees or hears about Jamie beating Fergus in the second book but does not say anything because, IMO she feels that it is not her place to tell him how to discipline the child. I think it definitely would have come up had Faith survived.

Does anyone remember what chapter that was? I think I need to go back and read it. I got the impression Claire was more upset about Jamie beating Fergus because he didn't deserved it. The infraction Fergus claimed he'd committed - wasn't it that Claire had gotten into a carriage with an unfamiliar man after her shift at the hospital and Fergus hadn't stopped her? (Like he could have) - wasn't his fault. I'm not so sure that Claire would have objected to Jamie spanking their children (spanking - not beating - I like to think she would not have allowed him to use a belt) had they actually deserved it.

Kat the only reason I called the incident on the ridge a beating not a spanking was because that is what they called it in the books.

Oh, I agree. I think, from what I read, it was more severe than what I consider a spanking. I think Claire also said he was whipping his daughter. I was just commenting that my mother had spanked me (not whipped or beaten) me with a switch once or twice when I was young.

"I also totally agree with you about Claire never really forgiving Jamie. I think there are those things that make you really upset in a relationship and time goes by other things happen and it becomes a chore to stay angry and eventually you just forget about it. That doesn't mean that you forgive them but it become harder to live your life holding onto that anger than it would be to just move on. I definitely don't think she ever forgave him but I think it just sort of dissolves with all of the other stuff that is going on. "

Yeah, they certainly do have a lot of other stuff going on!

Kat wrote: "Maddie wrote: "I totally get where you are coming from Sara. I don't think that it is common in romance novels today, I'm not sure I really don't read them, but at the time that the novel was writt..."
H
Hi Kat,

I totally agree consensual erotic spanking is NOT what was not what happened to Claire. I realize the formatting in my post made it harder to read. I actually typed it up in my note app and cut and pasted complete with formatting into the comment box, but it didnt take:(
J
As to your comment about McLintoc, most depictions of women in film and television are consived by, written by, cast by, and directed by men. I am NOT FORWARDING AND AGENDA, USING INFALATORY LANGUAGE (?) OR SUBVERTING, DERAILING OR ANY OTHER BIZARRE CHARACTERIZATION, by making this observation. I enjoy a lot of unrealistic, steriotypical - even mysogonistic old books, movies and television. They are problematic, but a part of my childhood and socialization. I have no issue with factual depictions of women in unequal, disenfranchised or abusive conditions or aituatios. Its not the reality of disempowerment that i am critical of in modern depictions of women, but the falacy of women as weak, unintelligent and infantile. (When Jamie said Murtog (sp) was right, what had Murtog told Jamie about women? I am referring to his figgle fit afte Claire said she loved him the morning after the beating.)

Mrsbooks wrote: " Ok, I didn't actually mean I find a person being owned amusing in relation to *anything and everything* which is how my comment sounded. Oopsies. At the time, I was actually only thinking about how Jamie felt he and Claire owned each other and I was thinking of the times this expression is used in modern day romances.

But I'm glad I amused you ;) "

I should confess, when I first read that "I find the idea of "owning" someone amusing." I had a picture pop up in my head like "Thor and and the Amazon Women" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054382/?... (You being the Amazon woman in charge)

hee hee. Then I couldn't get it out of my head. So thanks for that! Lol.

For the record, I didn't really think you meant in terms of actual slavery, either historically or contemporary (yes, it still exists). That's why I added the "depending on the context" line.

The statement that "Claire wouldn't have left the copse if Jamie hadn't left her alone" is more than likely true. While it's possible she could have ducked out while her guard dog/man took a leak or maybe she could have whacked him over the head with a tree limb, rock or something. She could have gotten away regardless, but I'm highly doubtful.

It's true that Jamie has legal ownership over Claire, but does that make him responsible for decisions she makes? Some, yes! From a moral aspect and how people used to look at things, if a man's wife acted "out of line" it reflected on the "head of the house."

So I can see where this frame of mind is coming from. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere, where a person, as a result of their own decisions and actions take ownership of the consequences that follow those actions.

I mean, the judge or jury isn't going to hang the husband because while he was working his wife murdered the maid. Granted, Claire didn't actually kill anyone but the results from her decision was a domino affect and in the end a life was taken.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that whether or not a wife's actions would be viewed as the husband's *fault* (when not legal situations) is probably defined by each individual circumstance with cultural and religious views largely affecting the way people think about it.
___________________________

Here's what I sometimes think about this whole thing:

The result (the beating) of everything that happened makes us discuss everything leading up to it with a fine tooth-comb. But if we take the beating out of the equation and lets just pretend Claire's *punishment* was.... I don't know.... lets say she had to.... uh, I can't really think of anything.... having to shovel the horse stalls...

Sometimes I think it's the beating in itself that takes out any sympathy for the men and their perspective, about why they require this justice.

I do think the scales of justice had to be met in this situation. I do understand where the men are coming from. And if we take out the beating and say that Claire had to shovel horse shit for a week, I don't think anybody would have a problem with Jamie leaving her alone in the woods or that the men required some kind of action leveling the scales.

Let me clarify. I'm again, not saying this makes the beating *right* (although it does in their minds) I am saying that I don't think it's wrong for them to feel ... well wronged and to want justice.

The events that lead up to Fergus' beating happen in Ch. 14 of book 2.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Here's what I sometimes think about this whole thing:"

At first when I read your post, I thought – now if you take the beating out of the equation, none of us would probably be on this board discussing any punishment! Lol.

But something about that didn’t sit right. So I let it percolate for awhile. I’ve read your post several times. I agree with large parts of it (the legal responsibilities of a husband in that time especially – I think you got that right.)

And yes, I also agree that a person has to take ownership of the consequences of their actions.

I thought about Claire shoveling horse shit. And while that would have been infinitely funnier than the beating, I had to ask myself if that still would have balanced the scales of justice?

I don't think so.

One of the problems I’m really having with this line of thinking is that the men required justice at all. I realize a man was killed because the men had to go save her. (But really, it was an English soldier which I'm sure they didn't really care about - and well, didn't they kill some English soldiers during the skirmish on the way to Leoch after Claire first fell through the stones? So I don't see the difference.) So what about everything Claire just went through? I mean, they feel wronged because she got captured by the English (and yes, ultimately it is her fault for that) and they had to go save her and that put their lives in danger. Okay. That they put their lives in danger I can sympathize with. But should that require the kind of justice they sought? Especially considering that none of the men were actually hurt and they were joking and bragging about what a grand adventure they’d just had! It hadn’t been such a grand adventure to Claire. What about the fact that she was bound and nearly raped? Wasn’t that its own kind of punishment for her actions?

Who sympathizes with Claire? No one. Not even her husband. That got completely lost in the shuffle here. It’s all about the men – and Jamie. THEY felt wronged. THEY wanted justice. What about what Claire wanted at that moment?

Claire’s needs and wants are completely cast aside. She might need and want comfort and reassurance after such a traumatic event, as most women would, but does she get it? No! It’s all about the men. Is their demand for 'justice' really more important than Claire’s need at that moment? Should it be? Especially to her husband, should it be? I have to say No.

It seems to be a bit of victim blaming on their part to me: Claire wouldn’t have been nearly raped if she hadn’t wandered away from that copse, so it’s all her fault we had to put our lives in danger and rescue her (and therefore she also deserves to be beaten for it!) What if it was this: ‘That woman shouldn’t have walked down a dark street wearing a dress that was a little too short after she was warned that was a bad section of town. It’s her fault she nearly got raped.’ That’s bad enough. Now imagine if our legal system beat her because a cop had to shoot the would-be rapist to rescue her. After all, it’s all her fault she put the policeman’s life in danger, right?

Even readers who usually champion Claire’s ‘agency’ - especially during the rough sex scene at Leoch - don’t seem to have a problem that her agency was completely subverted in the attempted rape and beating aftermath. And that’s not okay.

Kat wrote: "Mrsbooks wrote: "Here's what I sometimes think about this whole thing:"

At first when I read your post, I thought – now if you take the beating out of the equation, none of us would probably be on..."

Interesting point Mrsbooks! I think you make an excellent case against the beating scene as a plot device, although I'm sure that was not your intention.

Yes Kat, victim blaming of Claire. If we follow this thought process further, then what about Jamie's choice to go after her? Isn't he responsible for the decisions he made that put his men in danger?

Response to msg # 1140 Kat wrote: "

We're currently watching Grey's Anatomy (hadn't stayed caught up) if you haven't seen season 9, then don't read on lol.

But basically they all get in an airplane accident and are suing for compensation. Their lawyers tell them to go after the aircraft pilot. A few of them (and myself included) thought that the pilot was already paying for any mistakes he made by being paralyzed from the waist down.

I don't disagree with the majority of your post (I might even agree with the whole thing, I just have a short memory lol). This is one of the aspects of the whole scenario that rarely gets talked about.

I do know though, that with sexual abuse, cultural lines again play a huge role. It wasn't even *that* long ago, that you didn't talk about such things. I remember when I was younger, I had a friend from school who was sexually abused by her Step Father. Her paternal Grandfather who was a really nice and kind old man, didn't understand why his granddaughter had to keep talking about it all the time and wished she wouldn't. Something so basic - the need for her to talk about this, and he couldn't comprehend that.

I personally, don't really think what happened was Claire's *fault*. Claire could have easily left that copse and not come across the soldiers. If she hadn't realized she was so close to the stones maybe she would have decided to go after Jamie instead? All that would have happened from that is she would have ran into the guy that was sent back for her. What then? Would she still have been beaten? Would the men then feel they needed retribution for anything? Highly unlikely, I can't see that happening - because nothing happened.

I do agree that it's victim blaming. But I don't necessarily see that as being inaccurate. Even in Claire's own time (comparable to my friends Grandfather's) so much has changed since then.

Even today, to an extent, I can understand why victim blaming happens. Your use of the "‘That woman shouldn’t have walked down a dark street.....after she was warned that was a bad section of town" is a decent example. If a guy were to park an expensive car in a bad part of town overnight and comes back to find the car gutted - the stereo gone, the tires gone, seats taken out, etc, people would think the guy was an idiot for leaving it there in the first place. The guy is a victim of theft, a far cry from sexual abuse and much less complex.

Mrsbooks wrote: "Response to msg # 1140 Kat wrote: "

We're currently watching Grey's Anatomy (hadn't stayed caught up) if you haven't seen season 9, then don't read on lol.

But basically they all get in an airpla..."

They wouldn't punish the guy with a ticket, arrest or a beating though would they?

Mrsbooks wrote: "Her paternal Grandfather who was a really nice and kind old man, didn't understand why his granddaughter had to keep talking about it all the time and wished she wouldn't...."

Perhaps your friend's grandfather didn't want her to talk about what happened because 'he' couldn't deal with it. My mother would never talk about the bad things that happened in her life. Her generation didn't like to air their dirty laundry, so to speak, but really I think they were to embarrassed or ashamed to discuss things. Actually, it's only been in my lifetime that help has become available for victims of abuse, and they have been encouraged to speak up and take control of their lives.

When people say abuse was accepted in the past, they don't mean in the sense that people approved, they mean it was accepted in the sense that victims tried to hide what was happening because they felt ashamed or embarrassed, and people tended to look the other way. When a woman was totally dependent on her husband, as women were before the mid 1900's, they weren't likely to talk against him no matter how badly they were treated.

Claire fought back and demanded Jamie's promise it wouldn't happen again because she came from an era when women were starting to realize they could take care of themselves and their children, if necessary. Claire's unconventional upbringing, plus being a battlefield nurse during the war, made her more independent.

Kat wrote: "But I was writing that from Jamie's pov. It's interesting - several people on this thread have 'defended' (for lack of a better word) the beating from Jamie's pov. And it seems that I'm expected to just accept that and move on, right or wrong...."

I don't think people were 'defending' the beating from Jamie's POV, but saying that they understood his POV due to his upbringing and life as a warrior. There is a difference.

Kat wrote: " got my definition from Merriam-Webster..."

Sorry, I didn't know which was the 'approved' dictionary.

Whether or not Jamie is an abuser, with, or without, the approved definition of the word and it's variances, is all in the interpretation.

Kat wrote: "If there had been a man left to guard Claire, would she have even been able to give in to temptation to leave? I don't think so...."

I think if Claire realized where she was in relation to the stones, she would have found a way to leave even if someone was watching over her. If the opportunity presented itself, say he dozed off, she would have taken advantage.

But, we'll never know because the story wasn't written that way.

I think Claire forgave Jamie. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you'll forget what happened, it means you have come to terms with what happened and are able to move on and build a better relationship with the other person, if you chose. Of course, you'll remember, forgiving doesn't magically erase your memory, and things will happen to trigger that memory, and you may briefly feel upset or hurt all over again, but because you already came to terms with what happened and forgave the person, you will be able to let it go.

Claire remembered the beating a few times, and it made her angry when she did, but not to the point that she dwelt on it for a long period of time or couldn't get past it. She thought about it, called Jamie a few names, and let it go...which sounds pretty normal to me.

Forgiveness isn't about who was right and who was wrong, it's about letting go. You don't have to forget in order to forgive.

Kat wrote: "One of the problems I’m really having with this line of thinking is that the men required justice at all. I realize a man was killed because the men had to go save her. (But really, it was an English soldier which I'm sure they didn't really care about - and well, didn't they kill some English soldiers during the skirmish on the way to Leoch after Claire first fell through the stones? So I don't see the difference.) So what about everything Claire just went through? I mean, they feel wronged because she got captured by the English (and yes, ultimately it is her fault for that) and they had to go save her and that put their lives in danger. Okay. That they put their lives in danger I can sympathize with. But should that require the kind of justice they sought? Especially considering that none of the men were actually hurt and they were joking and bragging about what a grand adventure they’d just had! It hadn’t been such a grand adventure to Claire. What about the fact that she was bound and nearly raped? Wasn’t that its own kind of punishment for her actions?

Who sympathizes with Claire? No one. Not even her husband. That got completely lost in the shuffle here. It’s all about the men – and Jamie. THEY felt wronged. THEY wanted justice. What about what Claire wanted at that moment?

Claire’s needs and wants are completely cast aside. She might need and want comfort and reassurance after such a traumatic event, as most women would, but does she get it? No! It’s all about the men. Is their demand for 'justice' really more important than Claire’s need at that moment? Should it be? Especially to her husband, should it be? I have to say No.

It seems to be a bit of victim blaming on their part to me: Claire wouldn’t have been nearly raped if she hadn’t wandered away from that copse, so it’s all her fault we had to put our lives in danger and rescue her (and therefore she also deserves to be beaten for it!) What if it was this: ‘That woman shouldn’t have walked down a dark street wearing a dress that was a little too short after she was warned that was a bad section of town. It’s her fault she nearly got raped.’ That’s bad enough. Now imagine if our legal system beat her because a cop had to shoot the would-be rapist to rescue her. After all, it’s all her fault she put the policeman’s life in danger, right?

Even readers who usually champion Claire’s ‘agency’ - especially during the rough sex scene at Leoch - don’t seem to have a problem that her agency was completely subverted in the attempted rape and beating aftermath. And that’s not okay.
"

You've decided that you are "no longer interested in what I have to say". That is your prerogative. I think it's immature (I won't sugar coat or censor my thoughts) ....but frankly, I don't care. Whatever. That won't stop me from expressing whatever opinions I have.

1) Claire has not been truthful with the clan. I understand why that is, however, I also understand that it isn't fair to hold them accountable for knowledge that they do not have. It is not their fault for not understanding why she needs to get to Inverness and the stones. There are things in the story that we,the readers know, but other characters within the story don't. It isn't fair to expect characters to act a certain way based on information that they are not privy to within the context of the story. (it is my understanding that is a HUGE no-no in fiction from an editorial standpoint.) She never told them. She told Collum that she was traveling to get to her family in France and Collum offered to send word to her family for her. When she does finally tell Jamie the truth, he takes her there.

2) "There is no 'I' in team". That is a very common mantra that coaches, mentors and leaders in all sorts of group dynamic endeavors from military to sports to business all through history have lived by. I don't think this is an issue of no one feeling sorry for Claire. She became one of them when she married Jamie. Regardless of what's going on in Claire's mind, those men were starting to accept her as part of "the group". I think that to them, at that moment in time, they could not justify putting her above the group and what their mission was and they expected Claire to be of the same mindset since she was Jamie's wife and traveling with them. Claire's desire to go off alone is not supposed to be more important than the safety of the group (to them). She was told to hide and failed to do so. The end result is that she was captured by soldiers and they had to have a run in with British soldiers to rescue her. Now someone is dead and people now have prices on their heads for the killing of a British officer. Right or wrong, they blame Claire for not following the directions that she was given. According to Jamie, if she had been a man, the outcome would have been the same and the penalty far worse. If Claire is part of the group, why should we, as readers, expect them to treat her differently?

Having said the above, I still support Claire's agency. I understand why she needs to get to the stones and I understand that she saw an opportunity and went for it. Would I have done the same? I don't know if I would have chosen that precise moment to attempt it, but hindsight is always 20/20.

....on victim blaming....one of the biggest issues that I have with misguided (imo) feminist movements is that a safety recommendation that is made to empower women and help them stay safe is twisted and turned into victim blaming. College campuses have massive "Take Back the Night" rallies where young women parade around waving signs claiming that it is their right to be able to go out alone at night. It may be their right....however, it doesn't change the reality that this is not a smart or safe thing to do. Rape is not your fault. It's never your fault. However, that shouldn't make you think that it is smart or safe for you to go jogging in secluded areas in the middle of the night just because you are "taking back the night". A recommendation to you monitor your drinking and stay with your group at parties is not victim blaming. A recommendation that you don't leave a party to be alone with someone...even if it is with someone that you think you know is not victim blaming. It is a safety recommendation.

Sage wrote: "Sorry, I didn't know which was the 'approved' dictionary."

Neither did I.

"Whether or not Jamie is an abuser, with, or without, the approved definition of the word and it's variances, is all in the interpretation. "

Not according to at least one expert in the field (And I'm fairly certain he is not the only one.):
“Physical aggression by a man toward his partner is abuse, even if it happens only once. If he raises a fist; punches a hole in the wall; throws things at you; blocks your way; restrains you; grabs, pushes, or pokes you; or threatens to hurt you, that’s physical abuse. He is creating fear and using your need for physical freedom and safety as a way to control you.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

So with or without the 'approved' definition of the word (and both definitions were 'approved') Jamie is an abuser.

Sage wrote: "Kat wrote: "But I was writing that from Jamie's pov. It's interesting - several people on this thread have 'defended' (for lack of a better word) the beating from Jamie's pov. And it seems that I'm expected to just accept that and move on, right or wrong...."

I don't think people were 'defending' the beating from Jamie's POV, but saying that they understood his POV due to his upbringing and life as a warrior. There is a difference. "

As that discussion was about Jamie thinking he 'owned' Claire, and I was writing from Jamie's pov, I was not 'defending' (I did say for lack of a better word) his ownership, I was only saying that I understood his pov based on his upbringing, church teaching, and civil law at the time. There is a difference.

As for the "warrior" bit - this struck me:

“The central attitudes driving Rambo are:
Strength and aggressiveness are good; compassion and conflict resolution are bad.
Anything that could be even remotely associated with homosexuality, including walking away from possible violence or showing any fear or grief, has to be avoided at any cost.
Femaleness and femininity (which he associates with homosexuality) are inferior. Women are here to serve men and be protected by them.
Men should never hit women, because it is unmanly to do so. However, exceptions to this rule can be made for my own partner if her behavior is bad enough. Men need to keep their women in line.
You are a thing that belongs to me, akin to a trophy.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Sara wrote: "Yes Kat, victim blaming of Claire. If we follow this thought process further, then what about Jamie's choice to go after her? Isn't he responsible for the decisions he made that put his men in danger? "

You know, that's a very good point Sara - and another one that I don't see discussed very much. Let's face it, Jamie was not in charge of the men - they were MacKenzies, remember? He was a Fraser. While he swore his obedience to Collum, that oath was not reciprocal. The MacKenzie men had no obligation to follow his orders. So why did they? The book doesn't really say:

"How did you find me?" I asked. I was beginning to shake in reaction, and folded my arms around myself to still the quivering. My clothes had dried completely by this time, but I felt a chill that went bone-deep.

"I thought better of leaving ye alone, and sent a man back to stay wi' ye. He didna see ye leave, but he saw the English soldiers cross the ford, and you wi' them." Jamie's voice was cold. I couldn't blame him, I supposed. My teeth were beginning to chatter.

"I'm s-surprised that you didn't just think I was an English spy and l-leave me there."

"Dougal wanted to. But the man who saw ye with the soldiers said you were struggling. I had to go and see, at least." He glanced down at me, not changing expression.

"You're lucky, Sassenach, that I saw what I did in that room. At least Dougal must admit that you're not in league wi' the English."

"D-Dougal, eh? And what about you? Wh-what do you think?" I demanded.

He did not reply, but only snorted briefly. He did at last take pity on me to the extent of jerking off his plaid and flinging it over my shoulders, but he would not put his arm around me nor touch me more than strictly necessary. He rode in grim silence, handling the reins with an angry jerkiness quite unlike his usual smooth grace.

I think I've mentioned this before, but notice where Jamie says "..He didna see ye leave, but he saw the English soldiers cross the ford, and you wi' them."

Now, one of the main 'reasons' for Claire's punishment is that she disobeyed Jamie's orders and left the copse, right? WE know that. But the men didn't know that. There's no way they could know that. As far as they knew, the soldier came across her in the copse and took her with them. Yes, the copse was hidden. But how did the MacKenzie men know that Claire wasn't singing or humming to herself to pass the time and the soldiers overheard her and that's what drew them near and then they found her? While it might sound ridiculous, it is still a plausible explanation and my point is *They Didn't Know.* They couldn't know. There's no way they could possibly have that knowledge - and I just reread the entire fight scene - unless I overlooked it, I didn't see where Claire ever says that she left the copse on her own. She didn't deny that she did, but she didn't say that she did. So there is no reason for the men to automatically assume that she did - especially considering the circumstances under which they found her.

It's like blaming Jamie for getting captured by later on in the book. If he'd stayed hidden at the house (Lollybrach) the Watch wouldn't have captured him.

And this "but he would not put his arm around me nor touch me more than strictly necessary." is just incredibly sad after what Claire has just been through. ^^This is what I'm talking about in #1140. She is shaking with cold and shock after being nearly raped and her own husband (who 'loves' her already, remember?) can't even touch touch her more than strictly necessary.

But all that gets swept under the rug - even in the fight that follows - as it becomes all about Jamie's pride.

Kat wrote: "Sara wrote: "Yes Kat, victim blaming of Claire. If we follow this thought process further, then what about Jamie's choice to go after her? Isn't he responsible for the decisions he made that put hi..."

^^ This is the main problem I have with the scene. I have a problem with the fact that everything is turned into Claire's fault. And all of the aftermath is about making Jamie and the men feel better. This was a very traumatic experience for Claire. And no one (not even herself) takes into account her need to be comforted about the almost rape and then the beating afterward. It is HER fault that she is captured, even though it could have happened in several different way that have nothing is do with her 'disobeying' Jamie and it is only HER that needs to be punished for it. Then after that instead of getting her say the characters only hear what Jamie has to say about the whole situation. Claire never gets to say her feelings about any of it. She just accepts his point of view and moves on, far too quickly in my opinion. I understand why it is in the book and I do not have a problem with it being in the story line at all but the way that it is placed in the story line gives me a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak)

Now, one of the main 'reasons' for Claire's punishment is that she disobeyed Jamie's orders and left the copse, right? WE know that. But the men didn't know that. There's no way they could know that. As far as they knew, the soldier came across her in the copse and took her with them. Yes, the copse was hidden. But how did the MacKenzie men know that Claire wasn't singing or humming to herself to pass the time and the soldiers overheard her and that's what drew them near and then they found her? While it might sound ridiculous, it is still a plausible explanation and my point is *They Didn't Know.* They couldn't know. There's no way they could possibly have that knowledge - and I just reread the entire fight scene - unless I overlooked it, I didn't see where Claire ever says that she left the copse on her own. She didn't deny that she did, but she didn't say that she did. So there is no reason for the men to automatically assume that she did - especially considering the circumstances under which they found her.

The men did assume Claire had left on her own. They probably made that assumption based upon them *knowing* the copse was safe and well hidden. Of course we all know nothing in life is fool proof. But does that mean because they don't know 100% for certain that they can't be mad about it? I get mad about things all the time even if I don't know the full story, or anything for certain. I try not to, but I still do.

And eventually they do *know* she left. You can say that Claire not denying it is not an admission. But I whole heartedly disagree. When you read their argument and see how mad Jamie is at Claire for specifically not listening and blaming her for getting captured for that very reason, Claire would have set him straight. Before he even finished his sentence Claire would have ripped him up and down telling him she was captured *because* she stayed in his so called safe copse.

Then on top of that, do you really think she'd keep her mouth shut and let Jamie beat her on a misconception?

"What's the matter wi' me? I'll tell ye what the matter is, since ye want to know!" he said through clenched teeth. "I'm tired of having to prove over and over that you're no an English spy. I'm tired of having to watch ye very minute, for fear of what foolishness you'll try next. And I'm verra tired of people trying to make me watch while they rape you! I dinna enjoy it a bit!"
"And you think I enjoy it?" I yelled. "Are you trying to make out it's my fault?!" At this, he did shake me slightly.
"It is your fault! Did ye stay put where I ordered ye to stay this mornin', this would never have happened! But no, ye won't listen to me, I'm no but your husband, why mind me? You take it into your mind to do as ye damn please, and next I ken, I find ye flat on your back wi' your skirts up, an' the worst scum in the land between your legs, on the point of takin' ye before my eyes!"

And while, in my mind, I think what Claire went through more than 'made up for' her not listening to his *order* I can understand why, to them, it is not.

Through out history it's only now that people have really understood the emotional trauma that goes on with sexual assault. And even today there are idiots who don't understand.

.....what about Jamie's choice to go after her? Isn't he responsible for the decisions he made that put his men in danger?

I'm a little surprised this is asked. Dougals actually didn't want to go after Claire, which actually surprised me as well. But Jamie said he felt he had to go, had to see since she was spotted struggling with the English, Jamie doubted she was with them of her own accord. Kinda seems obvious to me, but yet I can see where they're coming from on that too. She's obviously not telling them the truth about who she is or where she's from and they don't understand why.

Anyways, Jamie decided to go after her.... Claire.... *his wife*. She is legally his responsibility, she's morally his responsibility, and supposedly, he's also in love with her. What kind of men would they be if they decided to leave her there? Is it Jamie's decision to go after Claire and is it his fault he's putting the men in danger? Or is the decision to go after Claire and put everyone in danger being done because it's the right thing to do? Is it being done because Claire didn't listen to begin with to stay put when she was supposed to?

Numerous times it's been brought up that Jamie did this and Jamie did that, or this guy did this and this guy did that and danger followed and bad things happened.

And it's being compared to Claire..."why does Claire get in trouble and no one else?"

While I think each individual circumstance is different and there are actually multiple reasons why this is the case. In my mind however, one of those reasons works for all the scenario's and that's simply because Claire is a woman. Cultural wise Claire is the lowest on the totem-pole, the lowest in the pecking order. It doesn't shock me to see a double standard. I'd have been surprised if there wasn't one. However I do not believe there being a double standard is the sole reason.

It is interesting though because I find that this double standard with Jamie wears off as their relationship progresses.

Kat wrote: "Now, one of the main 'reasons' for Claire's punishment is that she disobeyed Jamie's orders and left the copse, right? WE know that. But the men didn't know that. There's no way they could know that. As far as they knew, the soldier came across her in the copse and took her with them. Yes, the copse was hidden. But how did the MacKenzie men know that Claire wasn't singing or humming to herself to pass the time and the soldiers overheard her and that's what drew them near and then they found her? While it might sound ridiculous, it is still a plausible explanation and my point is *They Didn't Know.* They couldn't know. There's no way they could possibly have that knowledge - and I just reread the entire fight scene - unless I overlooked it, I didn't see where Claire ever says that she left the copse on her own. She didn't deny that she did, but she didn't say that she did. So there is no reason for the men to automatically assume that she did - especially considering the circumstances under which they found her.
"

I think trained soldiers and hunters have the ability to look at a scene and tell whether or not a struggle took place. The man would have been able to tell whether or not she was taken from the copse by force or not. He can look at tracks and tell whether or not anyone has been there and if so, how many men there were.

If we can indulge in hypotheticals, perhaps the man Jamie sent back tracked her to where she was captured and then on to the ford where he saw her struggling with the soldiers.

Kat wrote: "But I was writing that from Jamie's pov. It's interesting - several people on this thread have 'defended' (for lack of a better word) the beating from Jamie's pov. And it seems that I'm expected to just accept that and move on, right or wrong...."

I don't think people were 'defending' the beating from Jamie's POV, but saying that they understood his POV due to his upbringing and life as a warrior. There is a difference. "

As that discussion was about Jamie thinking he 'owned' Claire, and I was writing from Jamie's pov, I was not 'defending' (I did say for lack of a better word) his ownership, I was only saying that I understood his pov based on his upbringing, church teaching, and civil law at the time. There is a difference...."

Not sure what any of this means....your original comment was about people defending the beating, which is what I commented on, and then you said you were talking about ownership.

People, and I include myself, shouldn't take offense when someone disagrees with them because it's only a different opinion or interpretation.

However...I don't think anyone is defending either one, the beating or ownership, but, some, like me, understand Jamie's POV about both. And, yes there is a difference between defending and understanding. Understanding someone's POV doesn't mean you agree with them, but usually if you defend someone's POV you do agree. For example, I understand, or accept, how you and others, feel about Jamie but I don't agree. That doesn't mean I think you're wrong, or that I'm necessarily right, it simply means I don't feel the same way and, therefore, look at the situation differently. I don't agree with Jamie beating Claire, or his thinking he owns her, but I understand why 'he' feels the way he does.

As for Jamie being an abuser, I don't feel he is because this was a one time incident that was not the result of a domestic or personal quarrel or indiscretion. Jamie forgave Claire for leaving the copse and having to face Randall in order to rescue her 'before' they reached the Inn. The beating was to satisfy Dougal and the group he was traveling with. I think Jamie made that perfectly clear when he approached Claire in the room. Having read all but the last book, I know Jamie never raises his hand to Claire again even though they do at times, as in most relationships, disagree, argue and feel they have been treated unfairly.

You can recommend all the books/opinions of experts and Psychologists you can find that say differently, but they are only opinions. I realize the experts/Psychologists have done research and case studies, and that abusers have all types of personalities and tend to follow patterns, but I also know people can do things once and never repeat their action. I feel each situation needs to be looked at separately.

Mochaspresso wrote: "Kat wrote: " I didn't see where Claire ever says that she left the copse on her own. She didn't deny that she did, but she didn't say that she did. So there is no reason for the men to automatically assume that she did - especially considering the circumstances under which they found her...."

Didn't the man Jamie sent back to be with Claire, see her struggling with the British Soldiers when they were taking her? I don't think they were in or near the copse. (I'm going to reread and see how I came to that conclusion)

Sage wrote: "Didn't the man Jamie sent back to be with Claire, see her struggling with the British Soldiers when they were taking her? I don't think they were in or near the copse. (I'm going to reread and see how I came to that conclusion)



True. She wasn't in or near the cospe at all. I got the impression that he saw her while they were in the process of taking her to Capt. Randall. Jamie says that his man reported seeing the soldiers crossing the ford and that she was with them and struggling. When Claire was captured, she was in the process of almost drowning. The soldiers pulled her out of the water. Jamie's man didn't say anything about that. That's why I got the impression that he didn't actually see her being taken. He just saw them on their way to Capt. Randall and Claire was struggling along the way.

I did reread and, as Kat said, Claire didn't admit that she had left the copse, nor did she deny it...which is how Jamie knew she left. If she had stayed where Jamie left her and the British Soldiers had found her there, in the copse, she would have told Jamie. Claire wouldn't have allowed Jamie to accuse her of leaving and then punish her, if she had stayed where he told her. That and having been seen crossing the ford and struggling with the soldiers was how Jamie figured out what had happened.

The entire blame was put on Claire because she disobeyed Jamie and left the copse, had the soldiers found her there, it wouldn't have been her fault.

They had a very heated argument on the way back to the Inn, had Claire did as she was told, she would have had plenty of time to set the record straight.

Claire didn't realize what it took for Jamie to go into the Fort in search of her, until he calmed down and told her about being tied to the post in the yard and whipped until his blood ran, what would have happened had he been caught that day, and what he had to do to rescue her and face Randall with an empty gun. Jamie may not have comforted Claire physically, but he did tell her he would have killed a dozen men to get to her. And they did hold each other and ask for forgiveness before returning to the group.

Sage wrote: "had a woman, who had been punished by her husband, gone to her father or brother about it, they most likely would have told her to go home and do as she was told. "

Hmmm...This is pure speculation. One doesn't know how it would have turned out. There are many possible scenari, which is precisely why one cannot use "historical accuracy" as a definitive justification for how this whole plot/scene was written.

Sage wrote: "Can I ask Red...why are you speaking for Kat? I usually agree with Mrsbooks, Mochaspresso, and several other posters who have left the thread, but I let them speak for themselves. "

I am not speaking for Kat. Kat is perfectly capable to speak for herself, and they pretty much do it even better than me. When I have included Kat in my replies it was because the poster was linking our POV and talking about us both. And I always try and explained that is at least what I think Kat was meaning. I am not sure which post you're refering to but there is your answer...

Sage wrote: "if a book is Historical Fiction, based on history but written to entertain, then it is unfair to critize the author when the history isn't always accurate....esp. when the author hasn't implied that it would be"

My point was never about criticizing the author for the historical innacuracies that can appear in the book, but to oppose some readers' justification of the scene by using the "historical accuracy" line of argument. So I don't see how this accusation of being "unfair" applies to me.

Mochaspresso wrote: "For me, a huge part of the disconnect here is that Kat and Red seem to write very long posts referencing things in the book(s) that didn't actually happen the way that they are implying and the discussion gets further derailed. "

Hmmm...which posts and which book references are you talking about? Cause I, for one, haven't tried and quote or reference the book at length. I have even admitted pretty early on that I didn't remember some details and I wasn't about to go and try and reread all that (which led to some pretty upleasant posts...). And the long post I wrote were more about explaining my point than quoting the book. By the way, I don't think I am the only one to have written long posts. And when I do, I always take the time to quote the exact points I am replying to, in order to not make it clearer. Lastly, accusing me of derailing the very discussion I started is pretty...let's say "rude" and totally unfounded, seeing as I have regularly replied and clarified what my point was in order for the discussion to stay on topic.



Mochaspresso wrote: "Then there is also this colloquial language bait and switch going on. Red says "Ok, you see no fault in the way the beating scene is written and justified." I didn't say that the beating was justified. "

Here we go again : what does "langage bait" mean exactly? Cause the way I am reading it, it feels pretty passive agressive yet again. By the way, didn't say you said the beating was justified. My exact terms are, that you actually quoted right, are "Ok, you see no fault in the way the beating scene is written and justified." In this precise instance, the "justified" part references to the way the beating is mostly justified by readers as "historical accurate".

In other earlier posts, I remember trying and explaining why I didn't liked the way the beating scene was "framed" (especially with Claire moving on pretty quickly, etc.), which tended, IMHO, to make it easier to justify the whole situation for the readers. But that is not what I was replying to. I was replying to the whole "historical accuracy" thing.

Mochaspresso wrote: " The beating was not justified in the novel. That is what makes the way it was written so remarkable. It's a matter of cultural relativism. Jamie and Claire do not understand each other, their times and their respective cultures."

As I said above, I do think the "framing" of the scene was biased,before with the emphasis on Claire supposedly endangering everybody, with reference to the pressure put on Jamie to "right" Claire's behaviour, and after with how "quick" Claire claire moved on and even said to Jamie that she loved me or something equivalent. As I stated earlier, I think it was a poor weak writing. Obviously, we ddidn't read this scene/plot the same way.

Mochaspresso wrote: "What I do justify is Diana Gabaldon's right to include it. Those are two entirely different concepts to me.

And I don't see the point of doing so since I, for one, never refuted/negated/opposed DG's right to write whatever and however she wanted. I am just exercising my own right to free speech and criticism.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I may be wrong here but when it comes to physical violence (Hero towards Heroine) in romance novels, I do not find this common any longer. I find our culture has already shifted dramatically away from this. Not that it still doesn't use and keep a lot of the other abusive behaviors, but when it comes to domestic violence, it' a no no. The more time goes on and these existing writers keep writing and new authors come out, the ratio between the abusive hero stories vs non abusive hero stories will continue to widen and to grow."

I whish you were right. I don't have any actual numbers to back my point, but I am pretty sure that is not the case..yet. Far from it. Unfortunately, I do think that in romance (and in fiction in general) the majority of the production is still full of some type of hero/heroine abusive relationships. And abuse (whether it's verbal or physical" within a romantic relationship IS ("domestic") violence. And I do think that although there has been real important progress, mass culture hasn't "shifted dramatically" yet. The public discourse may have (and even on that ground, there is still major work to do...), but the behaviours are still overwhelmingly problematic. Case in point : street harassment.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I'm purposely excluding the kinky people looking for that genre, I have a feeling that's going to keep on growing."

What exactly do you mean by "kinky" genre? If you're referring to BDSM genre, it really has nothing to do with the "abuses" we are talking here.

Rather the very problematic rise in "dubcon" genre is a much more appropriate example of very problematic writings.

Mrsbooks wrote: "...I think if a romance author were to write a romance with a modern day male lead who was physically abusive but who changed and the Heroine forgave him, I don't know, I can't see it being very popular. It's soooo not politically correct."

HMMM...Ever heard of "50 shades of Grey"?

Mrsbooks wrote: "In fact, I almost feel like the shift is MORE problematic than before. And that's because authors are still keeping the really tough bad ass guy who throws his fists into walls when he's angry, who beats up other guys just for looking at his girl, and who obsesses over and practically stalks her. But of course, said hero would NEVER actually lay a finger on his girl. --------------------> Rolls eyes!!

This is SSOOOO misleading. A guy who exhibits those traits is more than likely going to be physically abusive with a woman. It's not set in stone obviously, but to take these bad characteristics and try to pawn them off as good, loving and heroic is just insane!"

I totally agree with you on that. And that's part of why I think there has been no major progressive shift. The scenario you're describing can relate to a good chunk of what is being written one way or another. The kind of behaviors that you described are indeed extremely problematic and the worst pat is that they are being routinely romanticized/glamourize. They are form of violence : not outright physical, but verbal, emotional and behaviorial violence.

Mrsbooks wrote: "I get that when talking about a particular scene you only want to talk about Outlander. And I understand that, when that particular scene does not have any correlation to future events. But if a scene is not fully explained, or a characters actions not fully expressed because it does so in a later book, then we're taking something "out of context" when only relying on one book to discuss it.

It would be like only talking about why we like or dislike BJR when only reading 35% of the book. When dealing with a series *some things*, not all, require looking at the bigger picture."

Well, in all fairness, that's what comes when an author decides to write a series. And I think it's a bit too easy to dismiss criticism on a book just because it's part of a series. If a character/plot/scene is badly written in one book, even if it's better written in the later books, it STILL is bad writing in that one 1st or 2nd or 3rd book. The progress made may mean that the author has a better grasp of said character/scene/etc., but the bad writing still is bad writing in that one book.

I don't doubt there are many things that may be explained better in later book. It doesn't change the fact that "in the context" of this one particular book, I think the writing of that one scene/plot is weak, lazy and problematic. And that the historical accuracy arguments are wrong ones.

Sage wrote: "Although, I don't agree that this series is more romance then fiction. There is a lot of romance in the first book because Jamie and Claire are young and falling in love, however, if you read the entire series you would know that although their romance is always an undercurrent, it is not the main part of the story. "

Well, as I said in many earlier posts, I am dicussing this particular book and my points only refer to this one, seeing as I haven't read the series.

Sage wrote: "The same with Claire's spanking, it's a small part of a much larger story."

Well, that part was significant enough for me to want to discuss it, and for you to jump into this discussion too. So...I don't really see your point here.

Sage wrote: "The scene wasn't about 'culture shock' or whether spanking as punishment was justified or not, it was about an action or incident, right or wrong, that became a turning point in Jamie and Claire's relationship. Because of Jamie's decision and Claire's refusal to accept the punishment, they were forced to come to terms with who they were. This was the first of many hurdles they crossed in learning to understand each other and building a life together. "

You understood the scene one way. Many other posters have been arguing about the scene being about said "cultural shok" and the likes. But again, whatever this scene is supposed to be about (which doesn't seems to be only one way for every reader), it still is poorly and weakly written for me and problematic. My main point isn't abour the "intent" but the "execution".

Sage wrote: "It's comments like this that weaken your opinion. You may not realize it, but it seems to imply that if someone doesn't agree with you then their opinion is flawed."

Really? You really "read" such an implication in a phrase that stated :"Now I get that you (and probably most readers) liked the whole plot ok. I didn't. And I've tried and explained why. That's all....". Really? Cause I have re-read it many times, I don't see such implication. I was just stating what I was disagreeing with the poster I replied to. That was very much as factual as it can be. Or so I thought. Also, I have stated agai and again that I am not discussing abouyt what people like or not. I am not trying and shaming people liking the scene or not. I am discussing a scene/plot that I think is bad writing. There is a difference between the two.

Sage wrote: "Just because someone sees the spanking as a small part of a larger story doesn't necessarily mean they liked the whole plot. I accepted Jamie's torture and rape by BJR as part of the story, but that doesn't mean I liked or enjoyed reading about it. "

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about the plot of the whole book, which has many. I was talking about the specific plot that led to that scene.