S01.E09: The Reckoning

[jordanpond]

I think that Jamie's own words during the beating indicate that he absolutely did not hate himself for doing it. He told her that I said I would punish you but "I dinna say I wouldn't enjoy it."

Although I don't personally believe in hitting children, I know a few people who do. And although they all believe that it is their duty to punish their children in this manner, I never heard any one of them ever say that they enjoyed it. But Jamie did. He did appear to regret it later, but at the time he did it, it was not mere duty that drove him; he enjoyed beating her. And I find that to be a serious problem.

[Nidratime]

I don't believe Jamie enjoyed beating Claire at all or we would have heard more about how Jamie likes to beat people, animals, etc. -- not just this one person. And, he would've got right to it without needing to be pushed to it by the clansmen. Think Blackjack who *does* enjoy that sort of thing. There's a pattern with that one. I think Jamie made that comment in the moment, in the give-and-take of his verbal and physical tussle with Claire. I believe what he did enjoy was her spirit and her fight, which I think is part of his attraction to her. If that ever disappeared or was "beaten" out of her, I think Jamie of all people would've been heartbroken. That's why her response afterward so struck him and he made his promise never to do it again.

[Sakura12]

We are looking at this through the eyes of 21st century people where beating anyone is now punished. Back then it was the custom. There were probably people that didn't believe that and didn't do it and they were the one that were looked at strangely. I also think Jamie gave into peer pressure. To me it looked like he wasn't going to do anything until he saw the Clan ignoring Claire and giving him dirty looks. He felt he had to do it, to be seen again in the eyes of the Clan. And as we saw the next morning the Clan was talking and joking with Claire again. 

[paulusar]

Why are we more worried about a spanking than the rapes, attempted rapes and killings? I also do not think that she deliberately wandered off and got captured and did not deserve it. Why not try and rescue your wife if she is captured by a sadist. He should never have left her behind in the first place.

[Nidratime]

He should never have left her behind in the first place.

 

 

I think he was afraid it might be a trap or that they may end up in a fight. I guess it seemed safer to leave her behind with a guard ... who should've been wearing the Tartan version of Depends. ;-)

[absnow54]

Why are we more worried about a spanking than the rapes, attempted rapes and killings?

Because the show isn't pushing the rapists as heroes/romantic love interests. Rape is something to be abhorred on the show. People react to it with the proper disgust. The wife beating, however, was accompanied by wacky hijinks music. It's not a matter of which is worse. It's a matter of how the show chooses to present certain topics, the message essentially was: rape is bad, but a man chasing his screaming wife around with a belt is funny, and that's not okay for some people. 

[iMonrey]

 

She's a smart woman. She doesn't need her husband to teach her lesson -- her younger, callow husband at that. I would have preferred to see Jamie defend and support her, and exercise his own judgmrnt and discretion.

 

Sure, but that's applying a 21st century sensibility to an 18th century man. There's all sorts of ways I'd prefer people in the distant past to have behaved, but that's not how history works. 

 

Actually, what I thought might happen is that Jamie would just make a showing of taking her upstairs and the screaming and protestations heard down below would fool his clansmen into thinking he had carried out the required punishment. That he felt he must actually go through with it just demonstrates the mindset of someone in Jamie's position in 1743. I think if they'd gone with a pretension in an effort to fool everyone and made Jamie behave in a more modern, enlightened way it would have been a serious cop-out and unrealistic for the time period.

[Hybiscus]

I just came from the media thread and EVERYONE is talking about the spanking scene. But there was so much more to the episode.  It really fleshed Jamie as a character, as an adult and a leader.  Without the spanking, we would not have seen Jamie grow as a husband and a marriage partner.  So in that respect, it was kind of needed.  (But I admit I've never understood the "I dinna say I wasn't going to enjoy it.")

 

Someone (up-thread, I think) mentioned there wasn't an outcry of "Child abuse!" for the boy who had his ear nailed to the wall.  If we were able to put that punishment into the context of historical morés, why can't we do the same with this one?  Is it because that punishment was administered by the evil Father Bain and it's done here by our hero?

[terrymct]

Why are we more worried about a spanking than the rapes, attempted rapes and killings? I also do not think that she deliberately wandered off and got captured and did not deserve it. Why not try and rescue your wife if she is captured by a sadist. He should never have left her behind in the first place.

 

She didn't deserve to be abducted and nearly raped, but her actions did directly and substantially put her own safety at risk as well as the lives and safety of the people who rescued her.  She's done things repeatedly without thought.  The difference this time is that she's married to Jamie and under the rules of his culture and the time in history, he was supposed to discipline her*.   I'm hoping that Claire does manage to learn to think of the repercussions of her actions.  It sounded like she was leaning that way a bit.  Maybe the path of destruction she's been leaving behind her will lessen some.

 

* - Not defending corporal punishment, just trying to look at this in the context of the time and the story.

[jordanpond]

 

Someone (up-thread, I think) mentioned there wasn't an outcry of "Child abuse!" for the boy who had his ear nailed to the wall.  If we were able to put that punishment into the context of historical morés, why can't we do the same with this one?  Is it because that punishment was administered by the evil Father Bain and it's done here by our hero?

Because with the child, the tone of the show indicated that, despite the times, the ear nailing was indeed unacceptable. The priest and the judge are presented as wrong to administer this kind of punishment. Claire thinks it's wrong and convinces Jamie to go against custom to release the boy. By contrast, the perpetrator of the wife beating is being presented as a romantic hero. In the case of the boy, the audience is led to be against the punishment, regardless of the custom of the times, but with the wife beating we are expected to accept it because "that's just the way things were."

[nara]

I'm fine with the episode as is, but I wonder if it would have been helpful to show Dougal (or his agent) strapping someone along the way for disobeying orders to show how normal it is in that society before we get to this scene. 

 

We have:

1. Loaghaire almost being beaten, but Jamie takes it himself.  However, Jamie shows off by choosing fists and there is some implication that Dougal's intent is more than just punishment.  Murtagh says that Dougal is "up to something"
2. The boy with his ear nailed is somewhat at the mercy of Father Bain, who is established as evil and malicious
3. Jamie's flogging is at the hands of Blackjack, who is evil to the power of infinity

 

Therefore, there is no real example of beating as justice--without anger, malice, or sex as a driver.  Showing Dougal punishing someone and then everyone getting back to normal might have helped set the context.  Unless the moral is that it's never truly justice and it always has some other underlying reason?  Oooh, I might have just blown my OWN mind! ;)

[jordanpond]

Very thought-provoking post, Nara. Quite interesting.

[absnow54]

Therefore, there is no real example of beating as justice--without anger, malice, or sex as a driver.  Showing Dougal punishing someone and then everyone getting back to normal might have helped set the context.  Unless the moral is that it's never truly justice and it always has some other underlying reason?  Oooh, I might have just blown my OWN mind! ;)

Technically Rupert beating Jamie falls into this category, even though it was at Dougal's malicious command. Rupert was following orders and there were no hard feelings, because it was the order of things. Jamie carried out the unspoken order of the clan by punishing Claire with the strap. But again, two scenes juxtaposed. One is played with tense ominous music as the room gasps with horror at the scene, the other is played with light hearted fiddle music while the boys downstairs guffaw over those two crazy kids. I wasn't even that offended by the scene. Jamie is twice Claire's size. If he wanted to hurt her, he would have. I do understand why people are so turned off by it though. 

[aemom]

The wife beating, however, was accompanied by wacky hijinks music.

 

I listened to the podcast with Ron Moore and he said that they chose the "lighter" music so that the audience would know that everything was going to be OK.  They also said in the podcast that they refer to it as a spanking, not a beating.

 

This scene has always been controversial long before the series ever came along.  It is only in very recent times that corporal punishment has become unacceptable, period.  Back in the 1950's my mother went to school with nuns where disobedience resulted in being struck on your knuckles with a ruler.  Children were routinely spanked (and some still are today).  Not that long ago, a wife could not charge her husband with rape.

 

Thankfully the world is becoming more enlightened, but 250 years ago, this sort of punishment was considered as routine and innocuous as a "time-out" is today.  People had to follow the rules because life was very dangerous. If you didn't, there were going to be consequences because other people might get killed as a result of your actions.  Jamie himself stated that if a man had done what Claire had done, there would have been consequences far more serious -- even possibly being killed.  But because she was a woman, she got off "easy" with the spanking/beating.

 

Jamie did this because he was expected to by the clan.  He would have lost everyone's respect had he not.  It was also a turning point for Jamie where he learned a lot about how he should deal with Claire and about himself and how he sees the world.

 

It was a plot point that was supposed to drive the story forward.  Was it controversial?  Absolutely.  But controversial situations are often what really drives character development in fiction and real life.

[terrymct]

 

1. Loaghaire almost being beaten, but Jamie takes it himself.  However, Jamie shows off by choosing fists and there is some implication that Dougal's intent is more than just punishment.  Murtagh says that Dougal is "up to something

 

I think part of the difference with Loaghaire versus Claire was that Loaghaire would have been stripped down to some degree then beaten in front of the whole gathered community.  Jamie mentioned that she'd never get over the shame of it.  Claire's strapping, while absolutely wrong by our standards*, did occur behind closed doors.   My impression of the Dougal thing was that his being up to something came about once Jamie volunteered.  Dougal took advantage of Jamie's having volunteered.  He didn't set Loaghaire up or anything along those lines.

 

* - Can we all assume that no one posting here thinks that a man beating a woman is a good thing?

 

(Edited because my command of the English language apparently left me while typing this.)

Edited April 8, 2015 by terrymct

[BusyOctober]

A friend of mine watched this episode and was so disgusted that "wife beating" was shown. She asked how I felt about it and I said I'm watching a show that takes place in 1743. A lot of what is shown is disgusting (hot urine splashed around by hand to dye wool, no bathrooms or showers, gross food, sword wounds), but it's all in context of the time period. I enjoy historical dramas and documentaries but it doesn't mean I enjoy all that went along as "customary" or standard practices of the time periods. I enjoy reading "Huckleberry Finn" but I understand what was said and done during those times is abhorrent and racist today.

Times & attitudes have changed and people's understanding of what is "acceptable" changes all the time. If we didn't change and adapt our society over time, we never would have advanced past segregating Jews in ghettos, burning witches, preventing females from getting an education or applying leeches to cure cancer. If any of us could time travel and speak to someone from those eras, they would have contextual arguments for why all those things were "right".

[nara]

I think part of the difference with Loaghaire versus was that Loaghaire would have been stripped down to some degree then beaten in front of the whole gathered community.  Jamie mentioned that she'd never get over the shame of it.  Claire's strapping, while absolutely wrong by our standards*, did occur behind closed doors.   My impression of the Dougal thing was that his being up to sometime came about once Jamie volunteered.  Dougal took advantage of Jamie's having volunteered.  He didn't set Loaghaire up or anything along those lines.

 

* - Can we all assume that no one posting here thinks that a man beating a woman is a good thing?

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that Dougal was up to something against Laoghaire, but rather that the beating Jamie received was about more than justice.

[tennisgurl]

I wish I had friends in the real world to talk about this show with.

 

I love period pieces, and I always appreciate historical accuracy, warts and all. This show has always shown that things are tough in this world, and that attitudes towards women are not very enlightened, so the spanking is not a huge horror show for me. Its just the way it was, even though we can look back at it now and call it wrong. While the spanking scene might have been a little more wacky than you would expect, the consequences were played totally straight. I thought it was another interesting look at how much times have changed.

 

I find the discussion here, and elsewhere on this scene really interesting, but I personally thought the rebellion stuff, and the whole conversation Jaime and Claire had at the end, were a lot more interesting. 

Edited April 8, 2015 by tennisgurl

[terrymct]

I find the discussion here, and elsewhere on this scene really interesting, but I personally thought the rebellion stuff, and the whole conversation Jaime and Claire had at the end, were a lot more interesting. 

 

Overall, I find the rebellion story, the inter- and intra-clan maneuvering, and the slice of daily life parts MUCH more interesting than the Claire/Jamie/Frank romance.  Claire is too much of a romance novel heroine, every man wants her and she somehow is good at so many things.  She's one of those characters that the reader is supposed to pour herself into and fill in the gaps.   Jamie is really two dimensional, although if they keep showing things from his perspective that may improve.  Poor Frank is less than two dimensional, as is his ancestor Randall.   Randall is mustache twirling eeeeeevil.  An interesting villain has a reason for being so, some kind of motivation, and some sort of aspect to him/her that isn't related to simply being out to get the hero/heroine.    I find Dougal and several of the secondary characters MUCH more interesting and potentially complex.  The Dougal - Collum relationship could be facinating if they handle it right and give it enough screen time.  You know, as pretty as Jamie's arse is, it doesn't have to be on screen so much that it should have it's own separate acknowledgements in the credits.  Give us some more about how Dougal and Collum balance power.  More about the rebellion.  How was Dougal doing this Jacobite fundraising (and I assume other activities) without his brother knowing?   Why do they come down on different sides of the issue?  Dougal must understand that protecting the clan is important.  Collum, having been raised side by side with his brother, must have some feeling about Catholic vs Protestant and who should be the King of Scotland and/or Britain.  Does Dougal's Jacobite work involve any other clans?  That, to me, is interesting.   I don't understand why Dougal and Collum haven't taken Claire to Inverness, put her on a ship going directly to France with a couple of guys to make sure she got there.   That's where she said she wanted to go.   Getting her to her destination solves their problems of what she may or may not have seen.

[attica]

They also said in the podcast that they refer to it as a spanking, not a beating.

 

Oh, right, because a spanking is something you do to children or in sex play, i.e. punishment or kink, but a beating is violence. So: nothing to see here. [eyeroll]

 

Look; I'm not going to argue about current standards v Jacobite Scotland standards. I'm going to argue the scene was dramatically ineffective at conveying whatever it was intended to convey. TPTB seem to want it both ways with the conflicting ha-ha happy music and the hint of sexytimes, contrasted with the scripted message that Claire sure did deserve a beating for disobedience, didn't she!  You mix your messages, you dilute your storytelling. And really: what would have been lost had the scene simply been omitted? Or, referred to without depiction? Jamie can come to the 'gosh, we should be partners' realization in any myriad of ways. Bah. A misstep.

 

Which is in no way intended to suggest that I'm not otherwise loving the shit out of this show.

[iMonrey]

 

Is it because that punishment was administered by the evil Father Bain and it's done here by our hero?

 

I can understand there's a desire to idealize Jamie as The Perfect Man, so yes, I do think some of the outcry is due to the fact that many would prefer to see him behave in all ways and at all times as the perfect dream lover. But in truth even the fact that he was so distressed by Claire's rejection he promised never to hit her again is probably unrealistic, and more modern and progressive than any man in that time period would actually be no matter how much we might wish it or fantasize about it.

 

As for the lighter, or "wacky" music used in the scene, as I noted earlier it wasn't so long ago - in my own lifetime in fact - when jokes about men hitting their wives made their way into mainstream sitcoms and nobody batted an eye. I understand that some people make no distinction between a spanking and a beating but in 1743 those were clearly two very different things, and the former being a source of amusement was well conveyed here regardless of how disturbing modern viewers might have found it. I think the scene served a good purpose and omitting it would be tantamount to whitewashing the reality of the time. I don't need a sanitized version of 1743 Scotland.

[jordanpond]

Terrymct, for some reason I'm having trouble quoting your post. As regards Jamie's arse being shown so much, I find that Clare's naked body is shown much, much more. In fact it's one of the things that has really bugged me about this show from the beginning. In the very first love scene, they show Claire in bed with her husband. And although no nudity is shown on Frank's part, both Clare's breasts and buttocks are shown.

Then when Claire arrived at the castle, the show did what I think is a dirty trick: they showed an undressing Claire successfully hiding her body from Mrs. Fitz --- but not from the camera, as the audience sees her partially exposed. And they often do lingering closeup shots of Clare's body parts in addition to whatever nudity is revealed during the action of particular scenes. They did this again with the beating scene. It's like "we're not sure if we'll get full exposure of Clare's body during the action, so let's add a few still shots". And the worst thing of all? The press has been calling the perspective of this show a feminine gaze!

Yes, In this episode, Jamie's backside was shown at the end. But only after Clare's breasts were shown in the beginning of the episode, her backside in the middle, and then her breasts again at the end.

I find it really irritating that a show with a female lead shows so much more of the lead's body than anyone else's.

Edited April 8, 2015 by jordanpond

[islagirl]

I did like Claire having to explain what "fucking" meant. Is she going to invent a word before it's time? lol. 

 

She sure did - the Marquis de Sade was just a child when she explained to Jamie what a "sadist" was. 

[terrymct]

Terrymct, for some reason I'm having trouble quoting your post. As regards Jamie's arse being shown so much, I find that Clare's naked body is shown much, much more. 

 

Agreed.  I feel the same way about Claire's breasts as I do about Jamie's arse.  Yes, we've seen them.  I'm not prudish, but think that there are better uses for that screen time, such as advancing the plot.

[nara]

Terrymct, for some reason I'm having trouble quoting your post. As regards Jamie's arse being shown so much, I find that Clare's naked body is shown much, much more. In fact it's one of the things that has really bugged me about this show from the beginning. In the very first love scene, they show Claire in bed with her husband. And although no nudity is shown on Frank's part, both Clare's breasts and buttocks are shown.

Then when Claire arrived at the castle, the show did what I think is a dirty trick: they showed an undressing Claire successfully hiding her body from Mrs. Fitz --- but not from the camera, as the audience sees her partially exposed. And they often do lingering closeup shots of Clare's body parts in addition to whatever nudity is revealed during the action of particular scenes. They did this again with the beating scene. It's like "we're not sure if we'll get full exposure of Clare's body during the action, so let's add a few still shots". And the worst thing of all? The press has been calling the perspective of this show a feminine gaze!

Yes, In this episode, Jamie's backside was shown at the end. But only after Clare's breasts were shown in the beginning of the episode, her backside in the middle, and then her breasts again at the end.

I find it really irritating that a show with a female lead shows so much more of the lead's body than anyone else's.

I agree that Claire is shown nude or partially so more than I think is necessary, which is odd for a show that has such a large female audience. However, I wouldn't necessarily include Frank as an example because I think that more established actors like Tobias have a better ability to negotiate for less nudity than newcomers like Cait and Sam.

Also, due to the way we perceive top nudity differently for men and women, the balance may seem more skewed than perhaps it actually is.

I also wonder if the excessive focus on Claire's nudity in this episode is due to it being from Jamie's perspective?

[jordanpond]

Interesting points, Nara,but I don't know why we shouldn't include Frank's character as an example. It seems to me that if the directors believe that a love scene should show nudity, then it should show it equally for both parties in the scene. I don't think that a woman should have to reveal more private parts in a love scene just because the actress has less political power.

As to topless scenes, yes, one could argue that Jamie has been shown shirtless as much as Claire has been shown topless. But, a shirtless man isn't necessarily considered sexual in the same way topless woman is. Where I live, shirtless men are permitted outdoors whereas it is illegal for women to appear that way. And I believe that a movie with a shirtless man can have a G rating, whereas a topless woman makes it R-rated. So, a topless woman is viewed in a sexual way that largely isn't true for men.

I don't think that the excessive nudity of Claire in this episode can be accounted for by Jamie being the episode's narrator, because in prior episodes there was "Claire only" nudity, and all of them were told from Clare's perspective.

[absnow54]

I haven't found the nudity on this show to be gratuitous, with the exception, maybe of the rescue scene, but that more so, was off putting to me because of the endless threats of violence and rape against Claire. Otherwise, I haven't found this to be like other cable shows where the primary settings are whore houses for unspecified reasons, and the men stay fully clothes while the women are heavily sexualized at every turn. A woman's body is considered more taboo, and while Jamie (and Frank in their Pilot sex scene) flashed just as much flesh, Claire is considered more naked because she has breasts, and those are valued more as a commodity for men to ogle at, than as their primary purpose to sustain life.

 

I do find it interesting that the sex scenes in this episode were kind of bland and borderline pornographic and haven't gotten nearly as much attention as the wedding episode, and that this episode was directed by a man. 

[NoNeinNyet]

I do find it interesting that the sex scenes in this episode were kind of bland and borderline pornographic and haven't gotten nearly as much attention as the wedding episode, and that this episode was directed by a man. 

 

That is the worst part about the spanking/beating. It really has distracted from the rest of the episode. This is the first sex scene that they filmed because they did all of the Leoch stuff together before the rent party stuff so that could explain a difference. I've only watched the episode once but it did look like Claire was clearly touching herself at one point when she was on top of Jamie which was a good, realistic touch.

[maraleia]

That is the worst part about the spanking/beating. It really has distracted from the rest of the episode. This is the first sex scene that they filmed because they did all of the Leoch stuff together before the rent party stuff so that could explain a difference. I've only watched the episode once but it did look like Claire was clearly touching herself at one point when she was on top of Jamie which was a good, realistic touch.

I think Claire was (and I'm going to say this delicately) putting Jamie's penis in her vagina as well as pleasure herself. Loved that touch of realism myself.

[ulkis]

I did like it when Jamie said, "before, when you called me a fucking bastard", he said "fucking bastard" in her accent.

Edited April 11, 2015 by ulkis

[NoNeinNyet]

I think Claire was (and I'm going to say this delicately) putting Jamie's penis in her vagina as well as pleasure herself. Loved that touch of realism myself.

 

Yeah, I rewatched it tonight and was actually paying attention to that part (which sounds kind of pervy) and that's totally what was going on. It was such a nice detail.

[jordanpond]

I haven't found the nudity on this show to be gratuitous, with the exception, maybe of the rescue scene, (snip)

And while Jamie (and Frank in their Pilot sex scene) flashed just as much flesh, Claire is considered more naked because she has breasts, and those are valued more as a commodity for men to ogle at, than as their primary purpose to sustain life. (snip)

I don't think that there is real lot of nudity in this show, but rather that there is too much female nudity relative to male nudity.

Was there a pilot that was shown prior to the series? Because if by the pilot you mean episode one, Frank did not show just as much flesh as Claire. Unlike with Claire, his backside was not shown at all. They barely even showed his chest, which as stated above, is simply not considered nudity in the way that women's breasts are.

Jamie hasn't shown as much flesh as Claire either. Jamie has never been shown naked unless Claire was naked, too. Claire, however, has been shown naked several additional times, including by herself, with Frank, and with B. J . Randall.

Edited April 11, 2015 by jordanpond

[aemom]

This show has an interesting line to walk. It is based on a beloved series of books and the readers are the core audience of the show. If you deviate too much from the books, you will alienate them, so the show has to incorporate important scenes from the book while at the same time make an interesting TV show. I will say that in terms of the spanking/beating scene, ShowJamie comes off far better than BookJamie.

You also want to try and get non-book readers to watch your show. It's tough out there these days because there are so many shows to watch. Nudity and violence will often get male viewers to try a show out. But is the nudity gratuitous in an attempt to get more viewers? I don't think so. There is a LOT of sex in these books, far more than we have seen on the show. Jamie and Claire are very passionate people and of all the sex scenes that they've shown, they've all had a purpose to drive the story forward.

First there was Claire and Frank reconnecting after the war. There was the wedding episode, the near rape of Claire which brought her back to reality and had her running for the stones, and finally the reconcillation sex where they both came to an understanding of things would be between them from now on. If you didn't show nudity, people would roll their eyes and say that isn't realistic because most people don't have sex with their clothes on. I don’t think that the nudity is gratuitous at all. Game of Thrones is the show with gratuitous sex.

The other nudity has typically occured with Black Jack which also makes sense because as the psychopathic sadist he is, he's going to want to make his victims as uncomfortable as possible.

Edited April 11, 2015 by AEMom

[methodwriter85]

I like that Claire didn't tell Jamie she loved him back. She's getting there, but not quite.

 

I thought the spanking scene was well-done.

Edited April 12, 2015 by methodwriter85

[girlplease]

I think it was only possible to do this episode from Jamie's POV - the spanking scene would have been completely unpalatable if we only got Claire's perspective. I have to believe this was their way of saying, "things like this happened in the time period during which this story takes place, we don't condone it but here's a glimpse into the thought process of the men who might have taken part in this behavior. Oh and also, please don't hate Jamie."

[halkatla]

 

no matter what the times, there are men who beat their wives, and men who don't. It's disappointing that Jamie is the former

 

Exactly! I was so disappointed by that scene. I skimmed over the thread and saw people debating his actions by using examples of "wife-beating through history", and I want to add that I really don´t think it was well regarded for christian men to beat their wives and punishing them like children to "make them learn". It is stated in the Bible that women should obey yes, but it´s also stated there quite a lot that a husband shall be kind to his wife. Of course this has been interpreted differently but from my studies, I´m a student of history and related topics, I´ve mostly seen that even though it was not usual for authorities to become involved in domestic violence, the men that were known wife-beaters were frowned upon and more often than not considered scum and a lower form of male. I´ve seen so many exampled of that, and none of the other (but my sources are not scottish so maybe this was acceptable there in that time). That men would think to paddle their wives, mothers of their children, on the ass like unruly kids seems far-fetched. Not even in the totally misogynistic past that I´m not trying to glamorize in any way can I see it as normal.

 

I really like this show, or should say liked maybe, because the focus is so much on Claire´s relationship to Jamie and that has almost been ruined for me now. I don´t like the politics so my main thing is Claire and her survival in this adventure. I think her character is great. Jamie has been ruined for me, although I have a short attention span when it comes to tv and he´s so cute and was sweet when he was repenting of his stupidity, so maybe I´ll forget it in time and like him again.

 

Also, for me, all the sex scenes are just too much, for too long and too explicit. I think this show beats Game of thrones in that regard, yet that´s always criticized for the sex and this gets a pass.

Edited April 21, 2015 by halkatla

[jordanpond]

This show has an interesting line to walk. It is based on a beloved series of books and the readers are the core audience of the show. If you deviate too much from the books, you will alienate them, so the show has to incorporate important scenes from the book while at the same time make an interesting TV show. I will say that in terms of the spanking/beating scene, ShowJamie comes off far better than BookJamie.

You also want to try and get non-book readers to watch your show. It's tough out there these days because there are so many shows to watch. Nudity and violence will often get male viewers to try a show out. But is the nudity gratuitous in an attempt to get more viewers? I don't think so. There is a LOT of sex in these books, far more than we have seen on the show. Jamie and Claire are very passionate people and of all the sex scenes that they've shown, they've all had a purpose to drive the story forward.

First there was Claire and Frank reconnecting after the war. There was the wedding episode, the near rape of Claire which brought her back to reality and had her running for the stones, and finally the reconcillation sex where they both came to an understanding of things would be between them from now on. If you didn't show nudity, people would roll their eyes and say that isn't realistic because most people don't have sex with their clothes on. I don’t think that the nudity is gratuitous at all. Game of Thrones is the show with gratuitous sex.

The other nudity has typically occured with Black Jack which also makes sense because as the psychopathic sadist he is, he's going to want to make his victims as uncomfortable as possible.

Although I personally prefer no nudity, I have enjoyed several shows that have had it. My problem with this show is that, although there is not a real lot of nudity, there is a lot more for the female lead than for all the other male characters put together. I always find it annoying when female bodies are displayed much more than male bodies, especially during sex scenes in which they supposedly need nudity to make it realistic and yet show only the woman but not the man naked. And I find it especially annoying in a show such as Outlander, in which a woman is the lead. Claire does more nude scenes, by far, than anyone. There have been TV shows full of nudity, such as Boardwalk Empire and The Sopranos, in which the male lead never did a single nude scene! They were shown in bed with nude women, but they themselves were never shown nude. Yet Claire is shown nude by herself, nude in bed in a sex scene when Frank is not shown nude, etc. It's the sexism of it that bothers me, not the total amount of nudity in the show.

[bluebonnet]

Although I personally prefer no nudity, I have enjoyed several shows that have had it. My problem with this show is that, although there is not a real lot of nudity, there is a lot more for the female lead than for all the other male characters put together. I always find it annoying when female bodies are displayed much more than male bodies, especially during sex scenes in which they supposedly need nudity to make it realistic and yet show only the woman but not the man naked. And I find it especially annoying in a show such as Outlander, in which a woman is the lead. Claire does more nude scenes, by far, than anyone. There have been TV shows full of nudity, such as Boardwalk Empire and The Sopranos, in which the male lead never did a single nude scene! They were shown in bed with nude women, but they themselves were never shown nude. Yet Claire is shown nude by herself, nude in bed in a sex scene when Frank is not shown nude, etc. It's the sexism of it that bothers me, not the total amount of nudity in the show.

The intent of nudity and the way it's portrayed certainly alters whether or not nudity falls into the category of sexism.  This show has become a favorite for feminists because the nudity isn't about titilating, it's not about the male gaze.  It's about telling a story with the body and so much about a woman who commands her own sexuality.  It can't really be compared to other shows mentioned, where a female tit was shown just because a female tit could be shown.  It's certainly not Game of Thrones that coined a super lazy practice of telling the audience exactly what's going on and entertaining them with women's bodies while doing so.  

[jordanpond]

I guess we'll have to disagree, because I am one of those females in the audience, and I do not find this show to be an example of the female gaze. I find it to be a male gaze presented as if it were a female gaze. What female gaze was being represented at the very extended view of Jenny ' s breasts being exposed? Or a bed scene in which the female lead's breasts and buttocks are shown but her husband (Frank's) body isn't shown? Claire being comfortable with her own sexuality and with her body is a completely different thing than displaying the body of Catriona or other women for the audience to see.

It boils down to a show with a a female lead in which, thus far, female nudity has been featured far more prominently than that of men. I can't think of any definition of feminism that would applaud that.

[ulkis]

I guess we'll have to disagree, because I am one of those females in the audience, and I do not find this show to be an example of the female gaze. I find it to be a male gaze presented as if it were a female gaze. What female gaze was being represented at the very extended view of Jenny ' s breasts being exposed? Or a bed scene in which the female lead's breasts and buttocks are shown but her husband (Frank's) body isn't shown?

 

Tobias Mendias is handsome, but honestly, I don't need/want any lingering shots of his body. I don't need or want any lingering shots of Claire's body either, but I can understand why they didn't show him naked in bed with her, he's not exactly beefcake.

 

I have no opinion/haven't made up my mind overall about the nudity in the show, but in regards to that brief scene I wasn't missing shots of Frank's body. I guess they could have covered up Claire too but I don't remember finding anything particularly egregious during that scene. I'd have to watch again.

[WatchrTina]

I, for one, took note that during the make-up sex at the end of S01:E09, there was a completely unnecessary moment when Jamie rolled over, bared-arsed on top of Claire.  I feel quite certain that that shot was included to "even the score" in the scene since Claire was topless for a good portion of it.  If so, I like their reasoning.  I also like looking at Jamie's bare arse.  

Edited April 24, 2015 by WatchrTina

[bluebonnet]

What makes it different, really, is that this is about Claire's pleasure, her sexuality.  There are a lot of great essays out there from excellent feminist theorists that have been written on the topic for those who are interested.  Though, I respect there are those who have moral opposition to female nudity so a focus on female sexuality probably wouldn't be something of interest.  

[mledawn]

Tobias Mendias is handsome, but honestly, I don't need/want any lingering shots of his body. I don't need or want any lingering shots of Claire's body either, but I can understand why they didn't show him naked in bed with her, he's not exactly beefcake.

 

I have no opinion/haven't made up my mind overall about the nudity in the show, but in regards to that brief scene I wasn't missing shots of Frank's body. I guess they could have covered up Claire too but I don't remember finding anything particularly egregious during that scene. I'd have to watch again.

 

My Tobias Menzies bias is showing, but he's plenty beefcake enough for me. People come in all shapes and sizes, and appeal to all kinds. I didn't think the scene with Frank was unequal but regarding the show as a whole, I do think the women spend far more time with less clothing on than the men - and considering the layers and layers of clothes they did wear at the time, it's sort of farcical.

Ultimately I do feel like there are a lot of bare breasts in this show, and while it's not GOT-level gratuitous, it's still a little over-the-top.

[ulkis]

My Tobias Menzies bias is showing, but he's plenty beefcake enough for me. People come in all shapes and sizes, and appeal to all kinds.

 

I agree - I don't think SH is the cutest man on the show myself - I didn't mean to sound as if I'd shield my eyes if they showed TM naked - I watched that scene he was in in Rome where Brutus skinny dipped in the river, heh - but I can see why they might have been like "oh they probably don't care too much about seeing his chest."

[methodwriter85]

The spanking scene didn't bother me much...I think they did a great job with the tone of it, with Jamie playing it as something he needed to do to teacher Claire her lesson, and Claire being someone that wasn't for that, at all.

[mizkat]

The spanking scene didn't bother me much...I think they did a great job with the tone of it, with Jamie playing it as something he needed to do to teacher Claire her lesson, and Claire being someone that wasn't for that, at all.

 

 ITA. I also think it had to play out that way in order for him to have the growth he had by the end of the episode. Although I have to say that I think they made some musical missteps throughout this episode--the music during the make-up sex was off IMO. Also when Jamie was scaling the fort it sounded like something from a super hero movie,  and it didn't work for me. Not that I don't love the music on this show--I adore it. It just wasn't utilized well in certain parts of the episode. 

 

Now that I'm rewatching, I have to give Sam amazing props for something I missed on first watch--the scene with Jamie and Claire fighting, and when she apologizes and how his eyes and face change from angry and tortured to sweet and charming--there's an obvious shift there that's really well done. Sam's able to give Jamie some complex layers. I know some people think Jamie's two dimensional but there are these tiny moments where there is so much more under the surface, and Sam brings that out. I have to say too the way Caitriona looks during that scene after he calls her a bitch is riveting. She's such a good actress--it's not fair to be that beautiful and talented at the same time. 

[TaurusRose]

There was a lot going on in this episode and a ton of points to discuss. I was hoping to find some thoughtful discussion and instead find endless posts about the how terrible it was that Jamie spanked Claire (and yes, it was a spanking; a beating leaves someone with bruises and welts) and how unfair the female to male nudity ratio is. Color me disappointed.

[WatchrTina]

taurusrose  the spanking scene is, alas, an enormous hot-button and has been discussed at length on Outlander discussion board for years and years -- long before the show.  If you want to read more about viewers' reactions to this episode you can always read the episode board here where book readers are allowed to post but you run the risk of being spoiled for future events.  And the spanking scene WILL be discussed there too.  As I said, it's a hot-button.

[Guest]

I started watching a couple weeks ago and have gotten as far as this episode. I'm been refraining from commenting, while reading some, because I realize discussion on these episodes ended already. But I have to say, this episode really bothered me. 

I see why they had Jamie narrate, but at the same time, it felt like Claire went through so much leading up to this episode and then during the episode that it felt like this just further took away her agency. 

Speaking of that, I was shocked/horrified, and angered by the beating she got. Could I see his perspective? Maybe a little. But still.... cold. And she forgave him much to easily. Plus playing it for laughs was just too much.

[guiser]

On 05/04/2015 at 2:01 AM, WatchrTina said:

I liked Colum chastising Jamie for marrying a Sassenach and basically taking himself out of the running for Laird. 

However, in 1743 the real McKenzie clan chief had an English mother and an English grandmother!  Or so Wikipedia informs me. XD Also, by this time, the clan chief (=landlord) was decided by primogeniture.  It seems that the Highland nobility (and the Mckenzies chiefs were definitely that) had a lot more ties to the English nobility than Outlander might suggest.

Yes, I know Outlander is fiction but, as a bit of a history nerd, I am pretty much constitutionally incapable of resisting pointing out this kind of thing! 

On 07/04/2015 at 2:13 AM, annlaw78 said:

I'm not unfamiliar with the literature and history of that period. Jamie is well-educated, part of the landed gentry (I believe), and well-connected to the Scottish upper class. That all the lairds are smacking their ladies around is questionable.

 

On 21/04/2015 at 5:37 PM, halkatla said:

I skimmed over the thread and saw people debating his actions by using examples of "wife-beating through history", and I want to add that I really don´t think it was well regarded for christian men to beat their wives and punishing them like children to "make them learn". It is stated in the Bible that women should obey yes, but it´s also stated there quite a lot that a husband shall be kind to his wife. Of course this has been interpreted differently but from my studies, I´m a student of history and related topics, I´ve mostly seen that even though it was not usual for authorities to become involved in domestic violence, the men that were known wife-beaters were frowned upon and more often than not considered scum and a lower form of male.

It looks like you are both right about attitudes to violence towards women. The latest research seems to show that it was not acceptable for Scottish gentry to behave in that way. Indeed, if anything, Scottish marriage seems to have been more equal than the English equivalent. Women were not expected to be quiet and submissive and just go along meekly with whatever their husband wanted.  And, yes, the Scottish religious set-up (more social control) definitely affected behaviour. However, much of the research on the family and marriage in Scotland is pretty recent , so it wouldn't have been available at the time the Outlander books were being written. 

There is an interesting post at this link  http://outlandercastblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/spanking-vs-beating-honest-historical.html that talks about Outlander in light of this recent research. 

I can only hope that by posting this kind of thing I'm not duplicating too much stuff on the book threads!