Outlander
discussion
*SPOILER* The beating scene and why it is just plain WRONG to try and justify it
Red wrote: "When someone says "no", you just Stop. No matter the situation or circumstances. No, means NO..."You're right, no means no. But, I doubt that Jamie had ever heard this or thought it would apply to a husband and wife. Jamie believed that, as Claire's husband, he had the right to take her whenever he wanted and Claire had never led him to think otherwise or refused him, not even after the attempted rape by the British soldiers. If anything, Claire was the teacher and encouraged Jamie to express his desires and what gave him pleasure.
Claire said no, not because she didn't want or like having sex with Jamie, but because he was rough, she changed her mind because her feelings changed, because she enjoyed their sexual relationship.
I agree Jamie was wrong to force himself on Claire and had she continued to fight him and say no, or shown fear or anger afterward, then it could be considered rape, but she didn't, she was content and comfortable with him, curled up in his arms. Claire never said or implied that Jamie raped her.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Please explain why you believe that her subsequent "yes" does not qualify as consent? I have my own theories as to why, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. "I never commented on her subsequent "yes", I only reacted to the idea that her initial "no" should have been enough for the situation to stop, even if temporarily. So whatever "theories" you may have about what you think is in my head are just that : YOUR theories.
As I've stated before, my OP wasn't even about that scene, which I barely remember, I am taking other posters word for it. And the very fact that Claire said "no" and yet the writer proceed to keep Jamie forcing himself on her until she got aroused is yet another example of what I think is just bad lazy problematic cliché writing in romance novel that I dislike.
And for the 1 000 000th time, as I've already explained, it's not about "whitewashing" (sic) stories or characters, whether the book is set in 18th century or in contemporary times. Badly written picture perfect character are boring, whether their are living in 18th Scotland, in 2016 New York or in 3156 dystopic Nigeria! And I can totally enjoy/root for (anti-)heroes, while recognizing why they are problematic. It's about getting tired of the same problematic trope being used when it comes to sex, violence and female/male lovers dynamics in fiction in general and romance in particular.
Mrsbooks wrote: "What you're telling me, is that when my husband tells me he doesn't want to have sex but I continue touching him and he responds.... is that I've raped him because he has never given a verbal yes? "Wow.. Mrs, I would't try and comment on the nature of your sexual relationship with your life partner. But since you brought it to this forum's attention, I would rather humbly redirect you to googling terms like "consent" or "spouses' consent", so that you can sort out by yourself what to make of your statement.
Mochaspresso wrote: "edited to add: I'm going to toss this out there because it's what I am thinking. It seems that whatever brand of feminism that is being applied to this scene only wants to deal with Claire's right to say no to sex. It disregards everything else in the story and it most certainly does not want to acknowledge or even consider her right to desire, say yes to and enjoy "wild monkey sex" with her husband.edited yet again: What I mean is that while rape culture is real issue in our society, I also think that the more misguided rhetoric surrounding it can also unintentionally subjugate women and their sexuality. It's an indirect subversive form of slut shaming. As soon as a woman expresses a desire for sex, especially sex that isn't "sanctioned", for lack of a better word, it's deemed problematic and indicative of rape culture. It almost seems that people would rather twist Outlander to say that Claire was raped than acknowledge that she is a sexual being.
It's a very wicked catch 22 that society has created. You can't admit that you desire sex with your husband because it creates a culture where men might think that all women always want it and rape them."
Seriously, those ETA were so unnecessary. I am not applying any "brand of feminism" to these discussion. YOU are the one labelling this OT bit of the discussion as such. And I would appreciate you to point out where exactly was I sex shaming Claire in any of my post, seeing as you're replying to one of my post to make make such inflammatory statement. My all argument was about the whole "she said "no" but..." which I found wholly unconvincing in regards to some of the criticisms.
And hell to the NO !! Pointing out the problematic writing in a scene that disregards a woman's consent has absoluterly nothing to do with some BS "catch 22" in today's society that could explain why "men might think that all women always want it and rape them". There is so many wrongs in this statement that I am going to leave it just there...hopefully to die.
Sage wrote: "I agree Jamie was wrong to force himself on Claire and had she continued to fight him and say no, or shown fear or anger afterward, then it could be considered rape, but she didn't, she was content and comfortable with him, curled up in his arms. Claire never said or implied that Jamie raped her."I get what you say, and as said before, I don't even remember this scene so well. I am only reacting to what has been written in here. The point to me is that she shouldn't have had to CONTINUE fighting him. That what I find problematic when I think about this : it's something that is recurrent in the genre where you have the male character never taking "no" for an answer", sexually forcing himself onto the female character who inevitably ends up "yielding" to his will or "succumbing" to her physical desire, or any similarly bad written scene. To me it's part of the whole "she says "no" but in fact she want it and you only keep pushing her and arousing her for her to agree" behaviour that is deeply problematic. Disregarding someone's non consent until that person agrees to your will, weaken the very notion of consent as a whole. To me, there was no need to have that type of writing to get a supposedly "rough" (although quite tame IMHO) sex scene.
But you're right : for what I recall, Claire never said Jamie raped her...but neither did I. That may be why I didn't focus on that scene at all in my OP, but rather on the one scene, the beating, about which Claire expressed clear views (anger, fear, revolt, disgust...) about, to the point that she threatened Jamie at sword point to never put an hand on her ever again.
Red wrote: "I never commented on her subsequent "yes", I only reacted to the idea that her initial "no" should have been enough for the situation to stop, even if temporarily. So whatever "theories" you may have about what you think is in my head are just that : YOUR theories. As I've stated before, my OP wasn't even about that scene, which I barely remember, I am taking other posters word for it. And the very fact that Claire said "no" and yet the writer proceed to keep Jamie forcing himself on her until she got aroused is yet another example of what I think is just bad lazy problematic cliché writing in romance novel that I dislike.
I've already stated that I would normally agree with you if the story were about contemporary characters and set in modern times. Jamie is a product of his environment, time and upbringing. I didn't expect him to have modern mindsets regarding husbands and wives and their marital bed. The concept of marital rape, in the context in which we are discussing it, did not exist in those times. Much of the conflict between Claire and Jamie stem from the fact that they are of different times, cultures and backgrounds and don't initially see eye to eye on a lot of things.
I don't think this is a cliched trope or evidence of lazy, problematic writing. I think it's a case of the writer understanding her character's development and ensuring that they are dynamic and plausible.
You seem very fixated on your notions of "what should be". Part of my disconnect is your wording. I think words and context matter. You said that Jamie "forced himself on his wife until she becomes aroused." I can tell from that wording, that we will never see eye to eye because our mindsets are very different. You saw a man forcing himself on his wife and I think that Jamie, being the product of his time and environment, believed that he was seducing his wife. Those are two very different concepts and I don't think it's wrong for a husband to attempt to seduce his wife. I also don't see anything wrong with a wife deciding that she is aroused by her husband's advances and deciding that she wants sex. Claire does not say or feel that she was raped and I think what she says and feels about what happens in her marital bed should trump what anyone else has to say on the matter. Claire clearly enjoyed having sex with her husband and twisting the narrative to make that somehow "wrong" or "problematic" just doesn't sit well with me at all. I think this does a much bigger disservice to women. It subjugates and represses them in a far worse manner, imo. Especially when you consider the fact that so much energy is being put into spinning this into rape when there was an actual rape that does take place in Outlander. Jamie was raped by Black Jack Randall. I guess it bothers me that Jamie's rape is not deemed "problematic" while Claire's pleasurable sexual encounter with her husband in their marital bed is twisted into something that it clearly was not. Not only is it deemed problematic, it's also claimed to be indicative of a poorly written trope. I think it's a very strange double standard that is happening.
I also think I'm more focused on "what is". Yes, in a perfect world with perfect people, Jamie would have stopped at her initial no. If he were a modern man and the sex were happening under different circumstances, I would most certainly have expected him to. However, I understand why he didn't. I also think that it is equally important to acknowledge that Claire actually came to important revelations about herself and her sexuality in that scene and I don't believe that I would appreciate the Outlander you seem to want where she is robbed of that or somehow magically and miraculously comes to these revelations via other means.
And for the 1 000 000th time, as I've already explained, it's not about "whitewashing" (sic) stories or characters, whether the book is set in 18th century or in contemporary times. Badly written picture perfect character are boring, whether their are living in 18th Scotland, in 2016 New York or in 3156 dystopic Nigeria! And I can totally enjoy/root for (anti-)heroes, while recognizing why they are problematic. It's about getting tired of the same problematic trope being used when it comes to sex, violence and female/male lovers dynamics in fiction in general and romance in particular."
You say this, but as your comments continue, they don't necessarily reflect that. Especially when you talk about what characters should or should not have done. I can accept that you didn't like Outlander. That is fine. What I don't agree with is some of the underlying reasons for what you find problematic. The reason why is that, to me, it seems that much of what you've said is based on what I view as twisted or skewed interpetations of the text.
Red wrote: "Seriously, those ETA were so unnecessary. I am not applying any "brand of feminism" to these discussion. YOU are the one labelling this OT bit of the discussion as such. And I would appreciate you to point out where exactly was I sex shaming Claire in any of my post, seeing as you're replying to one of my post to make make such inflammatory statement. My all argument was about the whole "she said "no" but..." which I found wholly unconvincing in regards to some of the criticisms. And hell to the NO !! Pointing out the problematic writing in a scene that disregards a woman's consent has absoluterly nothing to do with some BS "catch 22" in today's society that could explain why "men might think that all women always want it and rape them". There is so many wrongs in this statement that I am going to leave it just there...hopefully to die.
But aren't you disregarding Claire's consent as well? That's my point. You did not reference the scene in its entirety and you also added elements that were not present or supported by the text. You only focused on one part of it and twisted the rest of the narrative to suit the spin that you wanted to put on it. Before they have sex, he asks her if she will have him. She tells him yes. (consent) He tells her that he will not be gentle and she nods her head in agreement. (another consent) During the sex, she experiences pain, says no to it and tells him to stop. He doesn't stop. You are right. At this point, it is not consensual. I am not disputing this. I can also understand how and why an 18th Century husband doesn't realize this, though. Just as I understand how and why a 1940's wife doesn't seem to notice as the concept that we are discussing wasn't particularly prevalent or widespread and well known in her time either. While we are at it, I am also not of the mindset that this concept necessarily always applies quite so blanketly to what goes on in the bedroom between husbands and wives. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that a husband cannot possibly rape a wife. Not at all. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that I think there is a very distinct and understandable difference between seducing your spouse and forcing yourself on your spouse. Applying these very different terms interchangeably and arbitrarily without regard for proper context or nuance is not fair to women who do desire sex and seduction from their husbands. Back to Claire and what she does show that she wants......Claire discovers that she likes the pain and becomes aroused. (Like it or not, this is also her right.) She says yes and continues having and enjoying sex with Jamie. (consent)
The sex shaming (imo) comes into play when you disregard/dismiss Claire's sexual agency by saying that nothing else matters. The only thing that matters is a no that she clearly changed her mind about in the text. (This is her right or it should be.) She has a right to feel aroused. She has a right to decide that she welcomes her husband's advances. She has a right to desire and enjoy sex. She has a right to change her mind about what she will and won't do in her marital bed with her husband. To me, this should not be "wrong" or "problematic" and it certainly does not blanketly pertain to an overreaching rape culture in our society.
You are not saying it directly, but to me, it sounds like by twisting this scene, you are subversively creating a scenario where a woman can't express a desire for sex without encouraging and promoting rape culture and this is categorically untrue and unfair. At least, it is in my opinion.
Red wrote: .Wow.. Mrs, I would't try and comment on the nature of your sexual relationship with your life partner. But since you brought it to this forum's attention, I would rather humbly redirect you to googling terms like "consent" or "spouses' consent", so that you can sort out by yourself what to make of your statement. "I do not need to google. I know what my husband is happy with and what I'm happy with. If we didn't use the method of "seducing" each other, with our hectic opposite work schedules we'd never both be in the mood at the same time. During this time in our lives, what we do works for us.
What I'm saying is this worked for Jamie and Claire. Claire didn't feel raped. I don't ever feel raped or assaulted and neither does my husband.
_________________________
I very much like what Mochaspresso wrote above:
I am saying that I think there is a very distinct and understandable difference between seducing your spouse and forcing yourself on your spouse. Applying these very different terms interchangeably and arbitrarily without regard for proper context or nuance is not fair to women who do desire sex and seduction from their husbands.
If I'm extremely tired and if my husband continually accepts my constant refusal to have sex I eventually get a little offended with it. I mean, seriously, how long has it been? Aren't you interested enough to work for it? lol
But it goes both ways. Men also like to be seduced.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Red wrote: .Wow.. Mrs, I would't try and comment on the nature of your sexual relationship with your life partner. But since you brought it to this forum's attention, I would rather humbly redirect..."When you talk about you and your husband, this speaks exactly to what I've been thinking but possibly have not expressed clearly. I think it would be horrible to take this relationship that you have found mutually beneficial and put a "problematic" spin on it for the sake of slamming a book. There is nothing wrong with a woman desiring sex and there is nothing wrong with a woman deciding to welcome her husband's advances. For example, you can initially feel that you have a headache and are not in the mood and then because of something that he has done that arouses you, decide that your headache is gone and you are very much in the mood. This works both ways. That shouldn't be wrong and that certainly is not rape. Granted, Jamie and Claire are still technically newlyweds, but they were still married and had slept together several times. This was not an instance of date/acquaintance rape or marital rape. I think it's wrong to misrepresent the text out of context to put that type of spin on it. Jamie and Claire are an adult married couple and each of them has conveyed what they want and do not want. If Claire decides that she wants to have sex after Jamie "seduces"/"forces himself on her" (I've decided that however you want to phrase it doesn't matter. What matters is what Claire wants), she is entitled to have those desires and act on them and she is entitled to change her mind and then change it again.
The 'spanking' scene, as everyone calls it, was actually a beating, a clear example of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if in 1700 it was considered normal. It still was abuse, not some light bdsm-like game between two consenting adults, so could we please stop giving that scene '50 shades of grey' undertones?As for why people are uncomfortable with it, it IS supposed to be an uncomfortable scene, to show the difference between two people from two worlds.
What really creeps me out is the 29 pages of this thread, full of people that are basically saying "Claire deserved to be beaten, the real victim was Jaime, there's nothing wrong with what he did". Like, seriously? I wonder what these people think of real-life abuse then.
Returning to the scene, Claire was stranded in the past, married to a man she didn't even like that much for protection, was almost raped twice within the same day and was desperate to return home. Of course she tried to escape! That's to be expected. And then her husband becomes violent and beats her, leaving her sore for days. But he was right in doing so, because of reasons. I don't justify espousal violence today and I don't justify it in the past, and the people that are trying to do so, or to downplay what happened calling it 'spanking' or 'deserved' are, simply put, disconcerting (the fact that the scene is fictional is only marginal, because I often read similar justifications for actual, real episodes of violences against women, that's why this discussion is so off-putting to me).
Senny wrote: "What really creeps me out is the 29 pages of this thread, full of people that are basically saying "Claire deserved to be beaten, the real victim was Jaime, there's nothing wrong with what he did"."I don't recall reading that anywhere in the last 29 pages. I know I've never written that, nor do I believe it.
What I find off-putting about this thread is all the twisting of context as well as the refusal to acknowledge certain scenes, dialogue, or character statements taken directly from the book to support an opinion. Passing judgment on another reader based on "skewed facts" and "partial information" is highly offensive when discussing a book. What's the point of having a discussion thread if critical facts are just thrown aside and ignored?
Life isn't black and white, but I suppose there are people in the world that cling to rules and absolutes more than others. Personally, I explore the grey and try to understand both sides of an issue. There may be security in clinging to rules, but life happens in the grey.
Senny wrote: What really creeps me out is the 29 pages of this thread, full of people that are basically saying "Claire deserved to be beaten, the real victim was Jaime, there's nothing wrong with what he did"."I have a problem with this statement. I've been present for all pages of this discussion and although there have been *at times* where some comments were not expressed clearly and that thought *seemed* possibly expressed, it was always clarified later that it in fact, wasn't what was meant.
If you've read through all the comments you'd find that in a nut shell, us readers were able to forgive Jamie. Not that Jamie did what was right. Or that we're comparing it to BDSM (seriously?)
There are plenty things in this life that we all experience. Someone can experience something similar and feel it's unforgivable while another person chooses to let it go and forgive. Neither person is wrong.
Jamie's culture, the time period, etc, all those things help us to understand how he thought and how he felt and we were able to forgive him largely based upon those things. The same way if a spouse cheats, their mate might decide to forgive based upon the circumstances. Everything is taken into consideration.
Senny wrote: "The 'spanking' scene, as everyone calls it, was actually a beating, a clear example of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if in 1700 it was considered normal. It still was abuse, not some light bdsm..."I agree completely with Beckie Bookworm and MrsBooks. The discussion did include some misunderstandings and at times it became heated, but in the end most differences were amicably resolved. I don't remember anyone saying they felt Claire deserved the spanking, or that Jamie was the victim, nor do I remember anyone comparing the scene in the book to BDSM, or downplaying or implying domestic violence is justified.
Someone saying they understand Jamie's reasoning based on the time period and circumstance does not mean they agree with his spanking/beating Claire. Nor was Claire deciding she could forgive Jamie wrong.
Senny wrote: "."What really creeps me out is the 29 pages of this thread, full of people that are basically saying "Claire deserved to be beaten, the real victim was Jaime, there's nothing wrong with what he did". Like, seriously? I wonder what these people think of real-life abuse then.No one said any of the above and I don't think anything said truly could have or should have been construed that way. Explaining the story from another character's perspective (based on info taken directly from the text) is not the same as saying that you agree with that character.
As for the line about what posters possibly think about reall life abuse, I've noticed this tendency when dealing with women where society attempts to guilt or shame them into thinking a certain way. We are seeing this during the elections when Madeline Albright blundered during a campaign speech endorsing hilary Clinton with her comment that there was a special place in hell for women who don't support one another. Gloria Steinem also drew some backlash when she made some offhand comments about supposed reasons why some women were supporting sanders. There have been several posts with this same type of censorious tone. Something is wrong with you if you don't think a certain way about Outlander and thus, it must mean that you also endorse abuse in real life. Its something that I resent. Especially when these sentiments are being framed around things that did not actually happen in the book in the manner in which some are claiming. I resent being told that I need to think, feel or behave a certain way simply because I am a woman. I also resent that this notion is stemming from my refusal to accept what I believe are someone else's misinterpretations of a book.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Senny wrote: "."What really creeps me out is the 29 pages of this thread, full of people that are basically saying "Claire deserved to be beaten, the real victim was Jaime, there's nothing wrong wi..."Cheers. I'm not passionate about this book. I won't read the rest of the series - but I agree with you 100%.
Just adding my 2 cents now....
This entire topic is tired and misconstrued.
This beating/rape episode was intentionally written by a modern author.
If you are not talked about, you're not relevant.
Without controversy, this is a plain and simple, a dime a dozen, historical romance. This is the business of selling books.
If you are under the impression that this scene is in Outlander for any other reason, please take a moment to consider all of the other fiction/romance/historical best sellers you've read.
There are better done. The Scottish Prisoner is a much better book - original, and without this clear ploy to get its feminine audience in such a "tizzy"
So many things wrong in these TWENTY NINE PAGES of clearly poor contextual reading.
Know your author, know the intended audience.
Jennifer wrote:Without controversy, this is a plain and simple, a dime a dozen, historical romance. This is the business of selling books. "Was this scene included because of the controversy and therefore more sales?
You could very well be right. We can go by what the author has said but that doesn't mean she's being completely truthful. As discussed somewhere in this thread, Diana feels this scene was accurate. Could that be why it was included?
Without the controversy I would love this novel. I loved it before the beating scene. At times I find Diana's writing style reminds me of Dickens. Sometimes it also annoys me. I find she's quite gifted.
To me it stands out among other romance novels. There is a true bonding of characters. You really get to know them in a way that I personally find is rather rare. The length of the novel I'm sure also has something to do with that.
So we will have to agree to disagree on if this novel is a dime a dozen without the controversy.
Anyways, I guess my point is - to claim this controversial scene is added to boost sales is really just guessing at an authors motives. Personally I'm inclined to lean more towards Red's assumption that this was added because plots of husbands dominating their wives was a heavy trope during the time period this was written in. But even then I don't think that was why it was added.
I think there are many reasons it was added. Not a sole reason.
This was also Diana's first novel. I don't know if you've ever tried writing a novel but when I did, sales wasn't on my mind. Although if I were a pro at it and already selling, I could see it being on my mind :)
I think you will enjoy reading this posters comments. Her name is Heidi and I don't even remember what thread this comment was originally on but I found it incredibly insightful about what happens when a person is writing a book.
I'll put it in spoiler tags. Not all of her comment applies here but I just wanted to keep the whole thing in tact. Bold print mine, to highlight what more so applies here.
(view spoiler)
And last but not least, I agree there has been some poor contextual reading in this thread. Which is one of the reasons it's lasted for 29 pages :) And yes, this thread has also gotten tiring at times. But most in part, it's been really interesting. And once in a while someone new comes along and adds some new thought, like yourself.
Jennifer wrote: "Without controversy this is plain and simple..."A dime a dozen romance...that must be the reason I didn't find this scene tired or misconstrued...rarely, if ever, do I read romance.
Therefore it was simply a small part of a much larger story...not that earth shattering and certainly not the deciding factor as to whether or not I would continue.
I do enjoy this series though because. although I like Jamie and Claire's life together, to me there is so much more then the romance...the characters, adventure, time periods, descriptive writing style, fantasy and of course the history...accurate or not, I find it all entertaining and none of it has ever put me in a 'tizzy'.
Since I haven't the ability to write a novel, I try not to judge those who do too harshly. Sometimes we like what is written, sometimes we don't, and sometimes even authors we do know and love disappoint us.
I know many consider this series romance, plain and simple, but it actually has many genres...in our local BN it's in the Literature Section.
Sage wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Without controversy this is plain and simple..."A dime a dozen romance...that must be the reason I didn't find this scene tired or misconstrued...rarely, if ever, do I read roman..."
My post was not a criticism of Gabaldon,or Outlander. It is not my fav, but big deal.
Writers can write about whatever, however they want to. But everything included in published work is always there intentionally - by design. My opinion on motive is superfluous.
What I was commenting on was the tread. I was trying to give people a little perspective. It's a story.
And certainly, this story falls into many categories, as well as romance.
Reread my post - I didn't say the scene was tired or misconstrued. I said this topic is.
Jennifer wrote: "Reread my post - I didn't say the scene was tired or misconstrued. I said this topic is..."But isn't the topic the beating scene?
Sage wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Reread my post - I didn't say the scene was tired or misconstrued. I said this topic is..."But isn't the topic the beating scene?"
Wow....
Clearly you are continuing to misunderstand my posts. Sorry, Sage - I'm sure in a verbal, person to person discussion, we could've gotten past whatever your not understanding about my post. These are the limitations of this venue, however!
I should've taken my own advice, "know your audience"
Enjoy
Mochaspresso wrote: "much of what you've said is based on what I view as twisted or skewed interpetations of the text. "Well, I could as well say that much of what you've said is based on what I view as "twisted or skewed interpretation of the text", but I won't cause I am not part of the "text interpretation" police/jury/supreme court that has the authority to decides what is "skewed" or what is the ultimate true meaning of that book. Now sarcasm aside, let's just say the way I interpret the book makes me dislike the writing/characterization/plot and the way you interpret it make all the point that I find problematic non-problematic for you, and leave it at.
Mochaspresso wrote: "But aren't you disregarding Claire's consent as well? That's my point. You did not reference the scene in its entirety and you also added elements that were not present or supported by the text. You only focused on one part of it and twisted the rest of the narrative to suit the spin that you wanted to put on it. "I mentionned before that I didn't remember that scene well and only reacted to what was written here by a poster, which was basically something like : Claire said no and Jamie kept going. That is what I reacted to pointing that was problematic because it was non consensual, and it had nothing to do with the fact that Claire may enjoy rough sex. I never intended to make a point abouit that scene in particular, seeing as that is not what this discussion is originally about. I was only pointing out what I find another example of bad/problematic writing : the inclusion of a moment where despite a woman saying no her lover keeps going.
Mochaspresso wrote: "The sex shaming (imo) comes into play when you disregard/dismiss Claire's sexual agency by saying that nothing else matters. The only thing that matters is a no that she clearly changed her mind about in the text. (This is her right or it should be.) She has a right to feel aroused. She has a right to decide that she welcomes her husband's advances. She has a right to desire and enjoy sex. She has a right to change her mind about what she will and won't do in her marital bed with her husband. To me, this should not be "wrong" or "problematic" and it certainly does not blanketly pertain to an overreaching rape culture in our society.
You are not saying it directly, but to me, it sounds like by twisting this scene, you are subversively creating a scenario where a woman can't express a desire for sex without encouraging and promoting rape culture and this is categorically untrue and unfair. At least, it is in my opinion."
My remarks were never directed at claire and her sexual agency, but at the writing which put the character in a situation where she was said to have said no, to have not wanted further sexual intercourse but her lover disregarded this no. Yes she has the right to change her mind. What I question is the writing rationale to have her "no" disregarded. That is what is problematic to me.
Mrsbooks wrote: "I do not need to google. I know what my husband is happy with and what I'm happy with. If we didn't use the method of "seducing" each other, with our hectic opposite work schedules we'd never both be in the mood at the same time. During this time in our lives, what we do works for us.What I'm saying is this worked for Jamie and Claire. Claire didn't feel raped. I don't ever feel raped or assaulted and neither does my husband."
Hmmm... So why the rethorical question, then? Oh, well, never mind.
Sage wrote: "I don't remember anyone saying they felt Claire deserved the spanking, or that Jamie was the victim, nor do I remember anyone comparing the scene in the book to BDSM, or downplaying or implying domestic violence is justified.."You may not remember it, but they have been some posts that came accross that way to me (especially the BDSM comparison that always irks me, or the downplaying of domestic violence, for instance when labelling what happened as a "spanking"...), and it looks like it is the case for others like Senny too.
Jennifer wrote: "This entire topic is tired and misconstrued. "
An yet you couldn't help adding you 2 cents ;). Well, thanks, I guess, for adding your perspective to this...
Red wrote: " I mentionned before that I didn't remember that scene well and only reacted to what was written here by a poster, which was basically something like : Claire said no and Jamie kept going. That is what I reacted to pointing that was problematic because it was non consensual, and it had nothing to do with the fact that Claire may enjoy rough sex. I never intended to make a point abouit that scene in particular, seeing as that is not what this discussion is originally about. I was only pointing out what I find another example of bad/problematic writing : the inclusion of a moment where despite a woman saying no her lover keeps going.
My remarkes wer enevr idrected at claire and her sexual agency, but at the writing which put the character in a situation where she was said to have said no, to have not wanted further sexual intercourse but her lover disregarded this no. Yes she has the right to change her mind. Whta I question is the writing rationale to have her "no" disregarded. That is what is problematic to me.
"
If you don't remember the scene well, how do you know that the poster that your were responding to was actually right?
Anyway, I actually do agree with the following statement....
"the inclusion of a moment where despite a woman saying no her lover keeps going."
Normally, this would be true, but my disagreement with it in this particular discussion stems from the fact that this is not what happened in Outlander. That is an overly simplistic and misleading representation of what happened because 1) Claire is not having casual sex with a random lover. She is having sex with her husband. 2) the statement does not address the elements of seduction and sexual interaction that took place among this particular married couple. In the book, Claire says yes and then no and then yes again because she becomes aroused and decides that she wants her husband to keep going and welcomes her husband's advances. 3) the statement disregards Claire's sexual desires. Claire's decision that she enjoys and welcomes having sex with her husband should not be twisted into something that it isn't and made out to be problematic.
In other words, yes "the inclusion of a moment where despite a woman saying no her lover keeps going. " would normally be very problematic. However, that isn't what happened in Outlander because the statement is misleading and leaves out tons of info from the book. This statement should not be used as a blanket generic catch all phrase intended to apply to ALL sexual interactions between ALL married couples. A woman enjoying being seduced by her husband and enjoying sex with him afterwards is not problematic and indicative of rape culture and shouldn't be twisted into something that it is not for the sake of pushing an agenda. That takes the premise you originally started with entirely too far when it's misused and misapplied in this manner. It weakens your argument and imo, is precisely one of the reasons why some even go so far as to deny that rape culture actually exists. It exists and it is a very serious issue. I don't think it's wise to detract from it's importance by applying it to situations where it does not belong.
"OUTLANDER" is very, very popular with many readers. There is no way in the world that many of these readers will admit consider the possibility that some of Diana Gabaldon's writing is questionable. One of my favorite authors is John Jakes. Yet, I find some of his writing in regard to gender issues and especially homosexuality rather questionable.
Mrsbooks wrote: "It is a shame more men aren't interested in talking about this. I'm curious as to what they think..... but I think maybe they are afraid to.I mean, you can't go wrong proclaiming Jaime to be a je..."
I know I said my last post would truly be my last, but, here I go again.
I agree Mrsbooks, I would like to see more men's input on this scenario and the book in general. Women's views seem to be quite split, either they love it and feel the whole series is flawless, or they hate the first book and don't continue, and there are a few middle of the roaders who like the book ok but definitely see some holes and issues. I just read some statements Mark Ruffalo made about the "I am not a feminist" movement, and I would really love to hear his input about the book. I know some women and a few men say Claire's beating was equal to the way the other men would be treated, but I just can't buy into that considering everything Dougal gets away with by the end of the book. And when I consider that under Scottish rule, in the first book, we only see women and children physically punished. We see the British physically punishing Jamie of course, but under Colum and Dougal's regime it only seems to be women and children and they certainly cover their own hides when Dougal makes some poor choices. Whether or not that is true to the time period, I'm not sure or convinced it is, but I don't consider it equal treatment. And as I've mentioned before, I don't think the beating scene is in the book because of history or justice, it's in there for the fetish crowd, and I personally won't buy into justifying it as historical accuracy when there are so many other elements in the first book that are not historically accurate. But yes, I would definitely like to hear from more men.
Sage wrote: "Roweena wrote: "As for the 'slave' part, not sure slave is a word I would use. What word would I use? Well…."Captive is a more appropriate word then slave. Which, as the circumstances were, was a..."
I said my reply to Tim would be my last but I was wrong.
I am not sure what you are trying to say to me, Sage. In my reply, which was to Tim by the way, I clearly stated that "slave" is not a word I would use. I do use the word trapped. I emphasize that she is CAPTURED by the Scots and kept at Leoch by them even though she would like to leave. This to me means the same thing as being held captive. (Whether or not they are truly concerned with her safety could be debated, I think they are more concerned with her being a possible spy for the Brits and some feel she might be worth some ransom) Are you trying to reiterate what I said in my reply to Tim or are you saying that she is not really trapped by the Scots but instead is "held captive"? Honestly, I don't see much difference.
Senny wrote: "The 'spanking' scene, as everyone calls it, was actually a beating, a clear example of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if in 1700 it was considered normal. It still was abuse, not some light bdsm..."Senny, I actually had a really long post I was typing to reply to you but I some how clicked something and lost the whole dang thing, ugg, technology. But what I was going to say...
I agree. There are many cultures and religions that practice socially accepted and legal wife beating in the modern world, and most of us do not justify it, I know I don't. But many women, and a few men I guess, although we don't hear much from the men, justify Jamie beating (and yes it was a beating) Claire because it was (supposedly) a normal practice for Jamie's culture and time and he had good enough reasons. It was not justifiable then, and it is not justifiable now, regardless of culture or reasons. Reading history and saying "That practice was wrong and barbaric" is one thing, to openly justify it because the author has attempted to create a scenario to try to make you believe it was justifiable is another. (I don't buy into her scenario, I found too many holes, but that is another discussion.) Physical punishments on humans was wrong then, and it is wrong now, we don't justify it now, so how can we look back and justify it?
Whether or not that scene is truly historically accurate-I'm not convinced that it is.
I do believe that scene is in the book for fetish fodder, and not so much for history. But I definitely don't consider it a 'spanking'. Considering what he used, the number of times he hit her (we can surmise more than 12 based on what he said to her), his strength, his temperament at the time, and the fact that it left bruises for several days, it was a beating in my mind. Yet, many fetish readers claim it is one of their favorite scenes in romance fiction. I found several sites online about favorite 'spanking' scenes (I'm not calling it a spanking but other sites are) and Outlander made the lists on many of them. To each his own, but I can definitely not view it as a 'spanking' scene and certainly not one of my 'favorites' by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, I was disturbed by the overall message the book left me with-that "Jamie was justified in his beating actions because it was (supposedly) normal behavior back then and considering that he had risked his life to save her and there was a putrid British lowlander who posed a greater threat to them all and Claire needs to learn to follow men's orders or she could get them all in trouble or killed so there, bad girl Claire, you got punished and you deserved it". That is the message I felt the book left me with, the story didn't find a way to show or tell me that Jamie's actions were wrong. And I cannot honestly use the defense that 'he changed because he promised never to beat her again and he dinna make empty threats so we know he won't'. His change was truly not intrinsic. He made the promise because he was admittedly anxious to crawl back into bed with her, and she pulled a knife on him-a knife he knew she was capable of using. Would he have made the promise otherwise? And a question I had, one of many, about the story was- If it truly is his 'DUTY' to dole out justice to her, how can he even make that promise, knowing she may screw up again?
Sorry to be long winded, but I agreed with your statement about it not being justifiable in the modern world and therefore was not justifiable in the past (like slavery-it was clearly not justifiable then even though it was legal and socially accepted), so I wanted to express similar thoughts. I have some additional commentary where I mention GWTW and how it handles historical controversy published elsewhere, but didn't want to delve into all of it on this thread.
Roweena wrote: "I am not sure what you are trying to say to me, Sage. In my reply, which was to Tim by the way..."No need to get testy Roweena...I was actually agreeing with you that slave was not an appropriate word.
Captive is a more appropriate word then slave...
....As for trapped...Claire was certainly trapped in another time, but she was held captive by the Scots.
I didn't realize you and Tim were having a private conversation, I thought this was public forum.
Mochaspresso wrote: "If you don't remember the scene well, how do you know that the poster that your were responding to was actually right?"Well, I don't. Never said otherwise; Was just commenting on the post.
Mochaspresso wrote: "This statement should not be used as a blanket generic catch all phrase intended to apply to ALL sexual interactions between ALL married couples. "
Where did I ever write that? I even acknowledged that I didn't remember that scene. See, now you're the one making a grand generalization about what I wrote in reaction to a very specific post about a very specific scene...Tsk, tsk, tsk....
Mochaspresso wrote: "That takes the premise you originally started with entirely too far when it's misused and misapplied in this manner. It weakens your argument and imo, is precisely one of the reasons why some even go so far as to deny that rape culture actually exists. It exists and it is a very serious issue. I don't think it's wise to detract from it's importance by applying it to situations where it does not belong.."
The premise I started with isn't about the scene the poster commented on but about the beating scene. I was just reacting to a very specific post about a woman saying "no" to a sexual encounter and her lover disregarding her "no". Which is, in and itself, problematic to me, whether they are husband or wife or just casual lovers. Now I get that the scene didn't start like that and I didn't end there either and that some readers like you interpreted it as a "seduction" scene. I, for one, have no opinion on that since I don't recall all of it and I don't really care. I still find the writing distasteful, to say the least.
As for the reason why some people deny that rape culture exists, if all it takes for them to deny "rape culture", which as you say is a very seriousissue is a few post on a Goodreads forum, they should seriously question they belief system of belief...
Sage wrote: "Roweena wrote: "I am not sure what you are trying to say to me, Sage. In my reply, which was to Tim by the way..."No need to get testy Roweena...I was actually agreeing with you that slave was no..."
There are individual 'reply' tabs under each person's comment, and there is also a general 'comment' section at the bottom of the thread, at least as I view this thread from my laptop. I realize this is a public forum, but I assumed the 'reply' tabs under each comment were for replying to individual comments specifically, and the general comment section was for any comments applicable to the overall discussion. Some have told me they don't view the separate 'reply' tabs, only the general comment tab, perhaps a difference based on device used. I have used the 'reply' tabs quite a bit to respond to people who have made a comment I agree with and would like to discuss further.
As for the 'testy' part...hmmmm... words like pot/kettle and plank/speck come to mind.
Senny wrote: "The 'spanking' scene, as everyone calls it, was actually a beating, a clear example of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if in 1700 it was considered normal. It still was abuse, not some light bdsm..."Hi Senny, I was creeped out too, but also fascinated by some positions taken here. And I would agree that there has been vigorous defense of Jamie in this thread, but also some patient open minded criticism of the author's choice. I also agree the series depicts rape culture extensively, but you will not get much of a hearing on that topic here. A dozen pages or so back a prominent poster here stated boldly that "no doesn't always mean no". Alas...
Sara wrote: "Senny wrote: "The 'spanking' scene, as everyone calls it, was actually a beating, a clear example of domestic abuse. It doesn't matter if in 1700 it was considered normal. It still was abuse, not s..."I felt the need to come back and add some context to the statement "no doesn't always mean no" for clarification. We were talking about a specific scenario.
If Claire had in anyway felt violated, even if my own experience coloured how I saw the scene, I would have went with how she felt.
Claire said no during because it started to hurt. Then she wraps her legs around him to "help contain the sensation" and moaning "yes, Jamie, yes". While obviously a body can receive pleasure during rape, is this scene rape? Based upon my own sexual experience and taking into consideration the temperament and conduct of the character in question in this scene it does not seem that way to me.
I can easily change these roles to my husband and myself (both of us in each place) and if anyone were ever to insinuate that either of us were doing something so degrading to each other.... I don't know. I'd laugh hysterically at the ridiculousness of it or be so angry on behalf of those who have been assaulted....
Actually scratch that. I am an open person. There are some lines on social media that I usually don't like to cross. But why the hell not, right? I am mad on behalf of myself. I may have not been raped but I have been sexually assaulted and it does honestly piss me off when people make a comparison like this. Maybe that's why I feel so passionate about the subject?
Lover of Literature wrote: "There is absolutely nothing wrong with this scene, also you have to understand it was 1743, in the Scotland highlands! if Claire was a man he would have been either killed or been flogged!"Hmmm...Maybe you should read some more of the many pages of this discussion. There has been some very well thought out analysis made here. That is if you're actually interested into discussing. If not, well, never mind.
Lover of Literature wrote: "Actually yes! Outlander isn't problematic "Hmmm...'kay...If you says so...
This comment comes a few months after the last one so perhaps no one will read it. I am going to write it anyway because the scene where Jamie beats Claire bothers me like no other scene I have ever seen or read. I first saw the TV series and it just collapsed when Jamie beat Claire. I could not bring myself to see the rest. I think that the TV show tried to make a man beating a woman look good. I googled it a bit and realised that in the book the scene was from Claire´s point of view. The producer’s decision to make the episode from Jamie´s point of view to make his violence to Claire seem more acceptable I found awful. I also realised that the scene was much worse in the book. I finally borrowed the book at the library to make up my mind. Jamie threatening to break Claire´s arm, saying that if she cooperated she would get twelve strokes and if not he would put his knee in her back and beat her until his arm tired, and then actually putting his knee in her back and beating her almost to death. I don´t understand how anyone could not find that scene troubling. The comments about this being a spank not a beating and that it is not domestic abuse I simply can´t understand.
I have no problem with history being pictured the way it was. Past societies have had a much higher acceptance of violence than modern society. It was more common and accepted for a man to beat his wife in the 18th century. It is nothing wrong with that being reflected in a historical novel. My problem is that this is a romantic historical novel, and a man that put his knee in the back of his wife and beats her almost to death, while she is half smothered in some blankets can never be a romantic hero to me.
Red has already made a lot of good points about why the historical accuracy argument does not work. Another thing that annoys me with this argument is that there is a witch trial in the book, but witchcraft was no longer a crime in Great Britain from 1736 when the unified parliament repealed the witchcraft act of 1563. The last recorded execution for witchcraft in Scotland was in 1706 and the last trial in 1727. Both Colum and the priests that acted as judges in the trial should have known witchcraft was no longer a crime. For Ned Gowan who tried to defend Claire it should have been an easy case. So, there are things that is clearly not historically accurate in the book.
Anna wrote: "This comment comes a few months after the last one so perhaps no one will read it. I am going to write it anyway because the scene where Jamie beats Claire bathers me like no other scene I have eve..."I think I have said this before, but perhaps it could be the use of hyperbole by an author that is causing so much disconnect in how this scene is being interpreted. I did not take "beaten almost to death" so literally. Claire did not require medical attention. No major bloodshed or physical trauma. No broken bones. No internal injuries. She wasn't in a coma or unconscious. She wasn't even incapacitated. She had a sore bottom but was otherwise able to go about her normal daily routines the next day. That is not "beaten almost to death". This doesn't justify the beating in my view, but I do feel like failing to acknowledge the fact that Claire (via Diana Gabaldon as the author) was clearly using hyperbole derails the discussion a bit. It unfairly misrepresents the scene.
Regarding the witch trial, the book makes it quite clear that Claire's trial was not legal or fair. Corruption and mob rule are historically accurate in that context.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Anna wrote: "This comment comes a few months after the last one so perhaps no one will read it. I am going to write it anyway because the scene where Jamie beats Claire bathers me like no other sce..."Perhaps you are right about it being hyperbole. In the english version it is beaten within an inch of my life. That can not be directly translated into swedish so the swedish version is got a beating that nearly took my life. There is no way getting around that it is a very bad beating however. Jamie even beats Claire worse than Dougal found necessary.
Another question is did Jamie have to beat Claire over her bare bottom. Couldn't he have beaten her over the back. That would at least have been less humiliating to her. Was it custom for men to beat there wife's over their bare bottom?
About the witch trial I really think it is historically inaccurate. Of course it was corruption and mob rule but still. Colum is described as careful and not wanting to upset the English unnecessary. Also the priests should know that it was simply not according to law anymore and that there could be a price to pay for taking part in such a trial. And for a lawyer defending someone it should be an obvious defense that it is not criminal anymore.
Personally I think being beaten on the rear end would be the least humiliating and leave less negative feelings then any other location.Like beaten on the face... or the back... perhaps this is because I can associate the location with a child's punishment.
I feel that if it were done in another location, I'd feel worse about it. The same way I'd feel about knowing someone hit their child on the rear end verses on the back. It doesn't make either right, but I do feel I can reason and take cultural consideration with it.
Ug I don't know if I explained that well.
Mrsbooks wrote: "Personally I think being beaten on the rear end would be the least humiliating and leave less negative feelings then any other location.Like beaten on the face... or the back... perhaps this is be..."
As you write neither makes it right. I can't reason with it enough for it to still be possible for Jamie to be a romantic hero. A persons cultural background can of course make me understand to a certain point negative actions. But a man that beats a woman can never be a romantic hero. I know Diana Gabaldon didn't mean to write a romantic novel but it still is to a certain extent and to me that just can't be combined with the main male character beating a woman. The Tv show is described as romantic and on the copy I have of the book it says "The epic love story".
Granted it has been several years since I read Outlander, but I don't recall Colum being at the witch trial. In fact I am pretty certain he stayed at Leoch Castle and did not involve himself other than maybe sending Ned as her counsel.
Mary wrote: "Granted it has been several years since I read Outlander, but I don't recall Colum being at the witch trial. In fact I am pretty certain he stayed at Leoch Castle and did not involve himself other ..."He didn't take part in the trial but Geilis thinks he is somehow behind it to get back at her. Also the english might se him as partly responsible for letting a witch trial take place in his area.
Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Granted it has been several years since I read Outlander, but I don't recall Colum being at the witch trial. In fact I am pretty certain he stayed at Leoch Castle and did not involve h..."No, you said Colum acted as a judge at the trial. He did not.
Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Granted it has been several years since I read Outlander, but I don't recall Colum being at the witch trial. In fact I am pretty certain he stayed at Leoch Castle and did ..."Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly. I meant that the priests acted as judges at the trial and that both Colum and the priests should know that witchcraft was no longer a crime.
Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Anna wrote: "Mary wrote: "Granted it has been several years since I read Outlander, but I don't recall Colum being at the witch trial. In fact I am pretty certain he stayed at Leoch Ca..."Not really sure what your point is. The Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s in the USA making discrimination by race illegal. Yet, here 60+ years later people in power are still doing it.
Of course people don't automatically follow laws and for example continue to discriminate even though it is illegal. Still I think it's a different thing to hold a trial and convict someone for something that is no longer a crime. It is simply so obviously incorrect.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Breath of Snow and Ashes (other topics)The Velvet Promise (other topics)
The Martian (other topics)
A Kingdom of Dreams (other topics)
Changes (other topics)
More...
Then he tells her that he does not think that he will be gentle. After this, Claire narrates....
"I had time only to nod once, in acknowledgement or permission, before he bore me back before him, his weight pinning me to the bed."
They start to have sex and she experiences pain. She says no because of the pain. Jamie disregards it and continues. (Red is trying to imply otherwise, but I just do not buy that 18th century men were routinely instructed of the contemporary notion that no means no when it comes to marital sex with their wives. Do I think Jamie should have stopped? Yes. Do I think I understand why he didn't? Yes.) However, I still think what Claire wants is most important. In the book, after Jamie continues, Claire discovers that she is deriving sexual pleasure and gratification from the pain and says yes to the sex.
I think context matters. If these were drunken co-eds hooking up at a frat party in contemporary times, my thoughts on the matter would be completely different. But Jamie and Claire are adults, of sound mind, are not impaired in any way and they are married. Claire has a right to enjoy being seduced by her husband. She has a right to say yes, then say no and then change her minds and say yes again. (Is any of this fair to Jamie, btw? Hell, no. It's probably damned confusing to him but I am more focused on Claire.) Claire has a right to enjoy having sex with her husband in whatever manner she chooses. This is Claire's story. Just because the sex doesn't fit your personal notions of what is or isn't pleasurable, that doesn't automatically make it problematic and it certainly doesn't make it rape.
Yes, it's messy and complicated but it's also very realistic (imo) as far as common dynamics that might have existed between husbands and wives during those times. The concept of marital rape is still sketchy even in our contemporary times. Look at us. We can't even agree on what does or does not constitute an example of it. I'm sorry. I don't buy that it was somehow perfectly clear in the 1700s..
edited to add: I'm going to toss this out there because it's what I am thinking. It seems that whatever brand of feminism that is being applied to this scene only wants to deal with Claire's right to say no to sex. It disregards everything else in the story and it most certainly does not want to acknowledge or even consider her right to desire, say yes to and enjoy "wild monkey sex" with her husband.
edited yet again: What I mean is that while rape culture is real issue in our society, I also think that the more misguided rhetoric surrounding it can also unintentionally subjugate women and their sexuality. It's an indirect subversive form of slut shaming. As soon as a woman expresses a desire for sex, especially sex that isn't "sanctioned", for lack of a better word, it's deemed problematic and indicative of rape culture. It almost seems that people would rather twist Outlander to say that Claire was raped than acknowledge that she is a sexual being.
It's a very wicked catch 22 that society has created. You can't admit that you desire sex with your husband because it creates a culture where men might think that all women always want it and rape them.