S01.E16: To Ransom A Man's Soul

[Athena]

A desperate plan manages to free Jamie, but his wounds are more than just physical. At a nearby monastery, Claire attempts to save both Jamie's heart and soul, as his mind lingers on the torture.

Since the show is available On Demand, you may begin discussing the show once it is available on the episode date.

Reminder: This is for discussion of the TV show only. Any spoiler from outside the books (i.e. next week's preview) should be in spoiler tags. Please do not post or like here if you have read any of the books; this is a Read-Only topic. Book Talk folks, there is another episode topic for you.

[placate]

I don't know how I feel about this.

-being raped

-letting hubby be raped by future grandfather-in-law

-let wife fix hand

-tell wife her future in-law raped me

-go to France

-this makes everything better?

[terrymct]

I watched the finale early on On Demand and have one question.

People like this stuff?

Frickin slash torture porn? This is what has such a following in the books? The first half of the season was good. Interesting fish out of water stuff, clan politics, slice of life from an interesting era, with some sappy romance thrown in. With that scenery and those costumes, the romance drivel was easy to take. Now, Claire's super duper amazing skills can apparently cure the effects of rape and torture by letting Jamie abuse her. Stupid. Outlander isn't just a romance novel or series of novels, it falls into a warped sub genre of rape, abuse, and debasement. Worse yet, it's not even GOOD at that crap.

Are the good parts of the first half of the season gone forever? What about the Jacobite activities and the build up to Culloden? What about highland life in the castles and villages? Is the rest just rape, torture, horrible stuff, and Claire's amazing ability to solve every situation?

This episode was terrible, bad slash fan fiction brought to the screen. Everyone involved should be ashamed.

Edited May 30, 2015 by terrymct

[magdalene]

Yeah, I am done. I actually was done last week, but I wanted to be fair and watch the conclusion to see if I could find some reason to stick with the show. Jamie having been "healed" by his wife ultimate Mary Sue Claire in that cheap way was the last straw for me.

 

What I still can hardly believe there are people out there who "ship" Jack with Jamie - there is slash fic about them on the internet.  I guess that must be a big reason these books are popular.

 

Anyways, I am so disgusted I don't have anything else to add.

[bearcatfan]

Just because Jamie no longer wants to die does not mean he's over it or healed. He just no longer wants to die. As the reason he wanted to die was not the rape itself, but the fact that Jack tried to poison Jamie's memories of Claire, using his love for her to get Jamie to react how he wanted, she is the only one who could fix that part. That's what finally broke Jamie, not the rape. He had to know from Claire that she forgave him for responding, even though there was nothing to forgive. His face still looked haunted to me while he was sitting in that boat. His reaction to the news of Claire's pregnancy also appeared muted. I don't think he's fine. He clearly has the physical effects based on the way he was moving. Truthfully, most shows gloss over the after effects of rape. Outlander didn't.

[magdalene]

Now that I had some hours to think about my strong negative reaction to this show I think I have narrowed it down as to why this TV series has bothered me so much more than anything on Game Of Thrones and Spartacus.  The closest they came on Game of Thrones to this violent pornography was the torture of Theon. But as he is a supporting character and a despised villain it was easier to just avoid those scenes by ff through them. And Spartacus was always superficial cartoon violence.

 

But this here was the most concentrated torture and rape of a main character I have ever seen in fiction. The piling on just got to me. You would think that after being brutally whipped until his back was flayed that would be enough bad stuff happening to one character.  But no, they had to take this vivacious and sweet-natured young man and turn him into this thing, this object that the villain could torture some more in new ways and rape multiple times, and take all dignity and grace from this character. And then give us a cheap five minute coda with some superficial healing and a cheesy pregnancy  to cap it all off.

 

I feel dirty and insulted all at the same time. So obviously this show is not for me.  I liked this show up to and including the wedding episode but the appeal has died for me a brutal death in these last two episodes.

[LoveLeigh]

There was a show on HBO almost 20 years ago called "Oz." It took place in a men's prison and it was very graphic and there was a lot of rape and torture and some pretty outrageous stuff that happened.

 

However, somehow Jamie's rape was excruciatingly much more hard to watch. I could not watch Jamie's whipping scenes and had to fast forward through it. But there was that "spanking" scene with Jamie and Claire and Claire was whipped too after her witch trial. 

 

I think so much more could be done with the concept of the time travel. And it seems to me that no matter how much Claire loves Jamie, this would be a world she would try to leave very quiickly. it is just so dangerous and revolting. 

[magdalene]

I remember OZ. It was brutal but it wasn't as lurid as Outlander.  You knew what you were getting with OZ, it was a show about violent felons in a maximum security prison doing bad things to each other. With Outlander I naively expected a time-traveling historical drama with romantic overtones. Though Vern Schillinger was an awful human being he didn't make my skin crawl to the degree Jack does.  And watching OZ I never got the impression the makers were getting off on all the violence they put on the TV screen.

[attica]

You know, when I get to the last episode of a season (or series, comes to that) of a show, I have one of a handful of reactions:

1. OMG cliffhanger! Can. Not. Wait.
2. Wow, that really tied up plots/solved the crime/completed the arc.
3. Thank god that's over.

Here I am, sitting with option 3. 

 

Well, Outlander, you're not the first show I started really impressed with and ended up hate-watching. You probably won't be the last, either. 

 

(I realize this is a horribly minor quibble over a dreadful episode, but the careful blocking (both by the actors and the cameras) and bashful modesty drape over SH's man-parts, when TM is letting it all hang out strikes me as too precious by half, especially for this pornapolooza.)

[magdalene]

I can understand why SH wanted to cover up his penis. The poor guy was probably trying to hold on to a tiny shred of dignity.  I hope he gets paid very well for acting on this show. Just having to be in that head space for weeks while filming would be too much for me.

[Faux Pas]

One thing that bothers me about Outlander is that I feel like the plot eventually vanishes and becomes like a superficial game, where the characters are little pinballs that careen between near-rape/rape/torture. Or that one time, traveling vaudeville show. Or witch trial/burning at the stake. It's too much, too ludicrous and exhausting to gain enough depth to treat the level of depravity that arrives at the end. It feels paint-by-numbers and gratuitous because it's not dynamic; nothing advances or changes. It's increasingly less powerful because the rape device is overused and over shown. And its surrounding structure -- themes, symbolism, commentary -- are too absent to make the violent scenes worth the trauma of viewing. It seems like on this show there's been a conflation of shocking vs profound. Just showing heinous violence doesn't make a show, or a character, or a love story profound. There needs to be more to create a truly compelling story. And seeming so self-righteous in the presentation the heinous violence isn't helping.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Faux Pas

[HumblePi]

That was difficult to watch. I'm alright with a rape scene, it happens. I'm just so reviled by the way they dragged it on ad- nauseam, it became gratuitous after a while and wasn't really necessary to carry it to that extent. It was just too much for an audience to be accepting of. I can't see how Claire and Jaime could ever possibly work through marriage out after this. He'll only be reminded of his rape and torture every time they have sex and..... heaven forbid she happens to be wearing lavender oil. That's the sort of stuff that puts a person into a mental asylum or therapy for a lifetime.

I do like how the clan came to accept and love Claire. Now the adventure begins once again, in France where Jamie Fraser will escape the slaughter and dominance of the Scots and the future of the Frasers since Claire is pregnant. It seems her wimpy British husband must have been shooting blanks.  And yes, I'll be watching.

[magdalene]

http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/recap-outlander-what-did-i-just-watch/1

 

Hitfix recap of the episode - she is a non-book reader so safe to read. Just don't read the comments, they are full of spoilers and offended fans attacking the recapper - yikes!

Edited May 31, 2015 by magdalene

[HumblePi]

Want to know the exact moment Matt Debenham decided to toss Outlander out of his life? Read on!

http://previously.tv/outlander/highland-flung/"> Read the story

brilliant synopsis!

[bearcatfan]

I disagree about that synopsis. It appears that Matt doesn't understand a few things. First, just because Jamie had an orgasm does not mean he enjoyed it. It actually not that uncommon for people to orgasm during rape and it leaves them confused, ashamed and guilty. Second, It is possible for people to be happy about something but still be dealing with a trauma. Just because he's happy about the baby (still thought his reaction was muted) does not mean he's generally happy.

 

I must have a different definition of gratuitous than some. To me, gratuitous would be showing the rape of a minor character which we can then forget about. Why would you show the rape of a minor character unless you wanted to show the rape and not have to deal with the aftermath? That was not the case here. It happened to a major character and the show dealt with the aftermath. Jamie decided to live, mostly because Claire said she would die if he did, but that doesn't mean all is well. Even on the boat talking to Claire you could see in his face that he wasn't over it.

 

It's interesting, all the articles I saw comparing GoT to OL and how they handled rape in the past 2 weeks praised OL, and these people mostly saw both episodes, including this one. Most said SH deserved an Emmy nomination, if not the award outright.

 

I also watch The Walking Dead. It's not always fun to watch, but it makes me think and feel. Sometimes those feelings are good, sometimes they aren't. I find the concept of how people react in intense situations fascinating. In OL, I like the relationships. This episode was not easy to watch. I felt squeamish throughout many of the scenes. I did find them to be incredibly well acted and I felt that the depth of love between Jamie and Claire to be apparent. Jamie took the abuse to save Claire. Then, once Claire says she would die if he did, well, he decides that he's not going to let Claire die and if that means he has to try to live, he will.  Claire risked her own well being to save Jamie. Obviously I'm in the minority here. I'll be back to see how Jamie heals, what the 2 of them do to try to stop Culloden and how will that effect them when they aren't successful.

[Glade]

As a male survivor of rape and sexual/physical abuse, I'm glad they showed this.  I don't feel it's exploitative or 'torture porn.'  I'm glad to follow Jamie's journey.  I was touched by the moments of healing at the end of the Lallybroch episode between him and his sister.  And it will be much more difficult from here on out.  But I feel confident that no, this is not """porn,""" and they are going to continue to depict Jamie's PTSD and his emotional journey towards healing (which will be lifelong, yes.)  He still deserves love, life, and for people--i.e. Claire--to stand by him unconditionally. 

 

I'm glad this story is more then just a romance novel and that Jaimie isn't some Scottish fabio existing for viewer's fantasies.  I'm glad that Claire didn't continue narrating the entire season.  I'm glad that they didn't just brush over this important traumatic event.  The full story was valuable, and it had to be shown to be told.  Of course, homophobia causes people to reject many male survivors (of male-male sexual abuse) and reinforces the idea that it was their fault because their body was involuntarily sexually stimulated and that might have been a pleasant distraction/stress relief in the midst of the trauma.

 

I care about Jaimie as a character, and I'm glad to witness his pain.  This show has heart, and I'm going to keep watching.  I'm very interested to see what happens in Paris and how the many mysteries and plots unfold. 

[magdalene]

As a male survivor of rape and sexual/physical abuse, I'm glad they showed this.  I don't feel it's exploitative or 'torture porn.'  I'm glad to follow Jamie's journey.  I was touched by the moments of healing at the end of the Lallybroch episode between him and his sister.  And it will be much more difficult from here on out.  But I feel confident that no, this is not """porn,""" and they are going to continue to depict Jamie's PTSD and his emotional journey towards healing (which will be lifelong, yes.)  He still deserves love, life, and for people--i.e. Claire--to stand by him unconditionally. 

 

I'm glad this story is more then just a romance novel and that Jaimie isn't some Scottish fabio existing for viewer's fantasies.  I'm glad that Claire didn't continue narrating the entire season.  I'm glad that they didn't just brush over this important traumatic event.  The full story was valuable, and it had to be shown to be told.  Of course, homophobia causes people to reject many male survivors (of male-male sexual abuse) and reinforces the idea that it was their fault because their body was involuntarily sexually stimulated and that might have been a pleasant distraction/stress relief in the midst of the trauma.

 

I care about Jaimie as a character, and I'm glad to witness his pain.  This show has heart, and I'm going to keep watching.  I'm very interested to see what happens in Paris and how the many mysteries and plots unfold. 

You know I would like to respectfully state that it is possible to reject this narrative as pornographic without having a homophobic agenda.  What bothers me about the show is not the homo-sexual content, but the violence of it and the intense pornographic way it was filmed.

[TheodoraK]

i am beyond grateful for this Heads Up about this disgusting episode. i will not watch it. i will not watch the show again unless they start going back to the future where no one gets tortured and/or raped. something is seriously wrong with Diane Gabaldon. seriously seriously wrong and/or whoever wrote this godforsaken storyline. not sure why i can tolerate GOT and not this. it seems more integral to the overall story and it's not always the same person. maybe. which doesn't mean i don't get horrified.

[attica]

With Jamie, it has been presented as the Worst Thing Ever, and rightfully so. But how many times has Claire been sexually assaulted?

 

Including the pawing by her 'friend' Angus on the beach at their departure, which is played for fucking laughs.

 

But Moore got his helicopter shot over a real sailing vessel, so: whoo hoo.

[terrymct]

Want to know the exact moment Matt Debenham decided to toss Outlander out of his life? Read on!

http://previously.tv/outlander/highland-flung/"> Read the story

 

Absolutely on target recap.   Said a lot of things I couldn't put in words.

 

I'm going to repeat a question from the recap:   Why didn't someone kill Black Jack Randall?   I know why.  Because this is a half-arsed romance novel where the author will need the super villain again because he lives for nothing but to assault Jamie and Claire for no damn reason.  She has him in a plot line parking lot now.  When Jamie and Claire start to seem fairly happy, she'll pull Randall back into the mix to rape or nearly rape one of them or someone they care about.   He's a deux ex machina, not to solve an unsolvable problem but to throw Jamie and Claire back to the state of victim and comforter yet again and at the author's pleasure.

 

Edited to add a thought I'd forgotten to add:

 

I'm still convinced that at the root of this book/show and maybe the series, this is all about the author's view of masculinity.   Jamie and the highlanders are real men, uber macho and highly attractive in various ways to Claire.  Claire's husband Frank and Jamie's brother-in-law are more thoughtful men, not quite a man's man, who have a bit of control over their inner caveman, so they're less attractive and marginalized.   The Duke of Sandringham is gay, so he's played as a fop who manipulates others with varying degrees of success and is the subject of laughs.   Black Jack, who I strongly suspect will end up having been sexually abused by the Duke and thus the Duke's unwavering support for one of his boys, represents the warped results of the evilness of homosexuality.    This episode, the author laid out her vision of the damage that occurs when the good uber macho real man falls prey to the warped less-than-a-man man.  Basically, Black Jack dragged Jamie out of the "real man" category and down into his own.  Claire uses her magical cure all powers to bring him back to being a real man.

Edited May 31, 2015 by terrymct

[terrymct]

http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/recap-outlander-what-did-i-just-watch/1

 

Hitfix recap of the episode - she is a non-book reader so safe to read. Just don't read the comments, they are full of spoilers and offended fans attacking the recapper - yikes!

 

OMG, they savaged that recapper.  It must be hard when something you love as much as the diehard Outlander fans is exposed to a larger audience and people see events very, very differently than you do.   That said, a lot of those commenters went way beyond disagreeing with the reviewer.

[monakane]

I'm so glad I recorded the show instead of watching it in real time so that I could fast forward over the rape/torture porn.  They could have made their point without the graphic violence.   The ending was ridiculous.  There is no way someone that badly abused would be mentally functioning no matter how strong they are.   

 

I'm out at this point.  I loved the first half of this season.  I liked the time travel, fish out of water narrative.  I liked the adventure and romance, the landscapes and the mystical element.  

 

Ironically, Brigadoon is playing on TCM this morning.  A very different time travel to Scotland story.

[HumblePi]

It's been so difficult to sort out my feelings of this episode without going back and forth arguing with myself over it. Initially, I was shocked and disgusted and I thought that the writers definitely went too far with the rape violence depicted. But the violence of rape has frequently been shown in movies and on television for what it is, a premeditated act of violence. We have all commiserated with rape victims when they were women because it's more common and most of us can relate to it in some small way. But now, for the first time, we were able to get not only into the head of man being raped, but into the head of the rapist. Most of us have never thought of that, have we? To put ourselves into the mind of a man being brutalized sexually and physically in that way.

 

People have said that Black Jack tortured and raped Jamie for no apparent reason but I clearly see a reason. Black Jack Randall was nearly orgasmic with the flogging of Jamie. That was difficult to watch. I think Black Jack has both the deepest love and the vilest hatred of Jamie because he can't be that man that Jamie is. He's deeply flawed and he knows that no matter how he tries to project from the outside, a ruthless British officer, he know he can't even come close to what Jamie is. Jamie is everything he admires. Handsome, sexual, strong, deeply dedicated to his causes and to Claire, stoic, a fierce warrior, a virile masculine man. Black Jack admires that and hates Jamie for it. He wants to destroy that in Jamie by using any methods he has against Jamie. Flogging Jamie wasn't enough, Jamie was too strong. So he shamed, emasculated, horrified, and caused intense pain against Jamie. Black Jack is a perverted, sadistic mess but we knew that, we just didn't know how much.

 

A bunch of shaggy long-haired cattle pushing a door on top of Black Jack and killing him just wouldn't satisfy the thirst for his blood that the viewers have now. We want to see Black Jack Randall 'blood eagle' executed like in the Vikings as Jamie and Claire watch, or perhaps hot tar poured over his head and the tar set on fire while his hands and ankles are bound and he hangs from a tree. We want to see him suffer, scream and beg for mercy. I'm sure there's some really-really-really bad stuff in store for Black Jack Randall.

 

*Blood Eagle

the victim was cut from behind, the torturer digging his hands into the victim's torso and to the front, and seperating the ribs in such a way that they came out through his back, giving the illusion of wings, and thus a "bloody eagle".

 

Yeah, now that's what I'm talkin' bout!

[ganesh]

Just from watching the show, and not availing myself of outside media, the show has been rather open and honest about what it's about from the first scene when Claire goes back in time to Scotland. I didn't have a problem with this episode. It was quite psychologically horrific. Fine with me. This was a clear victory for Randall that's been building all season. 

 

Others have brought up that Claire's appearance changed Jamie's life because maybe he was 'supposed' to die. Well, if that's the case, this is kind of on her. That's a quite twisted interpretation of Claire's presence in the past, but it's also really interesting. 

 

People have said that Black Jack tortured and raped Jamie for no apparent reason but I clearly see a reason.

 

It's been abundantly clear throughout the season for me. I don't know if it's because I didn't have any preconceived notions about what the show was going to be or what, but I like the show. It's played fair from what I watched. Scotland is being occupied by a foreign military force; I'm sure this kind of behavior in general has happened a lot. 

 

Given that the episode was largely about Jamie recovering, or trying to, the impact of the end shouldn't be overlooked. For one, Claire is going to France. As much as I've talked about her owing Frank closure, I think I have to put that to rest. She's not going back and I don't think it's crossed her mind for a long time. Given what's happened, I don't know how she could even stomach looking at Frank.

 

What I really, really liked is that Claire openly talked about Culloden to Jamie, and actually talked abut trying to stop it. What if Claire is wreaking havoc for these people because she's not supposed to be there and keeps inserting herself into these events? It could be even worse for them. She knows Culloden as the effective end of the Highland way of life? What if it's largely going to be her fault? 

[attica]

I'm stunned that the abbot listened to Claire's story and didn't have her confined for being crazy. That Claire has managed to choose confidantes that buy her tale with no challenges whatsoever is another straw of ridiculousness in this haystack.

[bearcatfan]

Yes, but that's not the way it was presented. It wasn't just presented that he had an involuntary physiological response that caused him to feel shame and guilt. I could have understood that. His shame would have been heartbreaking. But the way it was shot, the way it was acted and directed, he seemed to be feeling pleasure. If it's just an orgasm, why the rhapsodic moaning?

So because he moaned and felt pleasure, that means it wasn't rape? Of course he felt pleasure, an orgasm is pleasurable. The build up is pleasurable. That doesn't mean that it wasn't rape. He felt shame because of it. Suggesting that because he felt pleasure means that it was meant to be some sort of slash porn fic is an insult to all those rape survivors who had similar experiences in feeling pleasure during the rape because an orgasm is a physical response.

[magdalene]

Absolutely on target recap.   Said a lot of things I couldn't put in words.

 

I'm going to repeat a question from the recap:   Why didn't someone kill Black Jack Randall?   I know why.  Because this is a half-arsed romance novel where the author will need the super villain again because he lives for nothing but to assault Jamie and Claire for no damn reason.  She has him in a plot line parking lot now.  When Jamie and Claire start to seem fairly happy, she'll pull Randall back into the mix to rape or nearly rape one of them or someone they care about.   He's a deux ex machina, not to solve an unsolvable problem but to throw Jamie and Claire back to the state of victim and comforter yet again and at the author's pleasure.

 

Edited to add a thought I'd forgotten to add:

 

I'm still convinced that at the root of this book/show and maybe the series, this is all about the author's view of masculinity.   Jamie and the highlanders are real men, uber macho and highly attractive in various ways to Claire.  Claire's husband Frank and Jamie's brother-in-law are more thoughtful men, not quite a man's man, who have a bit of control over their inner caveman, so they're less attractive and marginalized.   The Duke of Sandringham is gay, so he's played as a fop who manipulates others with varying degrees of success and is the subject of laughs.   Black Jack, who I strongly suspect will end up having been sexually abused by the Duke and thus the Duke's unwavering support for one of his boys, represents the warped results of the evilness of homosexuality.    This episode, the author laid out her vision of the damage that occurs when the good uber macho real man falls prey to the warped less-than-a-man man.  Basically, Black Jack dragged Jamie out of the "real man" category and down into his own.  Claire uses her magical cure all powers to bring him back to being a real man.

Nods. As soon as he got overrun by these beautiful cattle and wasn't dead I got a sinking feeling that of course the author was going to use him again to hurt the heroes some more.

 

Well, I only have myself to blame for watching this show.  I was warned by a friend before the show came on the air that this author has a disturbing rape fetish, and that it is a device she uses over and over again. But I thought Ron Moore is the show runner and I knew his work so I watched. But I lost all respect for him now. You know what he and the director of the episode call the part of the rape where Jamie feels pleasure - "love-making". Yeah, Jamie and Jack are making love. 

 

What gets me also that they didn't have to show the rape, they could have stopped at the point where we see Jamie's ravaged nude body. It was obvious seeing his body what had happened to him. 

 

I don't know whether people here are familiar with the new Mad Max movie but that movie has a powerful rape survivor narrative. And yet there is not a single rape depicted in that film. Not a single one. You don't have to be explicit and pornographic to show the evil of rape and rape culture.

Edited May 31, 2015 by magdalene

[iMonrey]

I was expecting to be disappointed by this finale after the last episode, and I was. It wasn't really a finale, it was a "stay tuned for the next book/season." There was no ending or closure, just the start of another adventure for Claire and Jamie.

 

Overall I feel like the story should have ended when Jamie took Claire to the stones and she decided to stay with him. Everything that's happened since then has felt like a different story altogether. And in the last few episodes, Jack Randall's weird sexual obsession with Jamie consumed the story. It was just weird. I feel like I was tricked by a bait and switch. A story about a woman who travels back 200 years in time and fights to get back to her own time, all the while falling in love with a man despite herself, turned into something quite different altogether. It became a story about some weird, sadistic guy getting off on raping and torturing. WTF.

 

It's not the violence or the brutality or rape I object to, per se. I get it, it's a violent world and there are violent people in it. It doesn't matter if it's "true to life" or even if it's faithful to the book. The story itself is what I object to. You don't start out reading Gone With The Wind and expect it to turn into a story about Rhett Bulter getting ass-raped in prison and getting the crap beat out of him and being humiliated and tortured over and over again. If you knew that's what the story was going to become you wouldn't have started watching it to begin with.

 

I have no idea what Diana Gabaldon was trying to say with this story and I really don't care. It went from being entertaining to boring to painful to watch. And that's a failure in story-telling in my book. 

 

I won't be back for a second season, especially since Jack Randall is still alive and the specter of his return is looming large. I've had about enough of him, thanks very much.

 

 

[ganesh]

I think going to France and Claire out right stating she wants to change the past is something I'm looking forward to. The season is much of Claire reacting to events and mouthing off.

I don't need a show to always have closure.

[ennui]

The story itself is what I object to. You don't start out reading Gone With The Wind and expect it to turn into a story about Rhett Bulter getting ass-raped in prison and getting the crap beat out of him and being humiliated and tortured over and over again. If you knew that's what the story was going to become you wouldn't have started watching it to begin with.

 

You said it better than I could. There is so much material, and yet it ends with violence and rape.

 

Btw, I loved the cattle. John Wayne did that in Chisum.

[magdalene]

Those cattle were like no ones I had ever seen before, they were absolutely gorgeous and when I hoped for a second they had actually killed Jack I was like "yeah! super cows!" But then I was quickly deflated.

[Athena]

Hello. I just want to post a couple of reminders about tone on these forums.

 

First, I want to thank the posters who have been contacting me and the mod team about posts. I appreciate it. We deal with a lot things behind the scenes and if I don't get back to you, I just want to say thank you here.

 

The controversial subject matters and depictions of this show will result in intense discussion and reactions. However, please be aware when posting that you do not denigrate or express negativity about those that do enjoy the show and the books. You can dislike the show, but don't imply that those who do are in any way wrong to do so. There are watchers who are book readers and non book readers who have an indifferent, positive, negative or just mixed feelings about the show. No one should be painted in one brush here and your posts should not reinforce it.

 

Furthermore, discussion about rape, sexual violence, and torture are triggering. Please be careful when disagreeing or agreeing with others about how Jamie should or should not have acted. Watch your tone in your posts and please disagree with each other in a civil manner.

 

Thank you. Have a good rest of your weekend.

[albaniantv]

Great comments --I go back and forth about the last 2 episodes and will just let it sit a while before deciding whether to stay with it. This is my first season for GOT as well and both shows vary greatly from what I thought they would be. And for both shows, have no desire to read the books and mainly enjoying the actors and scenery and quasi-history more than the plots and depictions of what we are told is era-appropriate violence.  

[terrymct]

 

 What gets me also that they didn't have to show the rape, they could have stopped at the point where we see Jamie's ravaged nude body. It was obvious seeing his body what had happened to him. 

 

I don't know whether people here are familiar with the new Mad Max movie but that movie has a powerful rape survivor narrative. And yet there is not a single rape depicted in that film. Not a single one. You don't have to be explicit and pornographic to show the evil of rape and rape culture.

I think this episode would have been more powerful if they cut all the prison cell scenes except that first one where they wake up and Black Jack leaves him. Then, Jamie tells Claire about it bits as a time, kind of like he does in the episode without the flashbacks. That way, we know what happened to him through the lens of his pain of talking about it to Claire. I think the branding would have been more effective as a big reveal, although, yes, Claire should have noticed that burn when she was treating him.

[Proclone]

Nods. As soon as he got overrun by these beautiful cattle and wasn't dead I got a sinking feeling that of course the author was going to use him again to hurt the heroes some more.

 

Well, I only have myself to blame for watching this show.  I was warned by a friend before the show came on the air that this author has a disturbing rape fetish, and that it is a device she uses over and over again. But I thought Ron Moore is the show runner and I knew his work so I watched. But I lost all respect for him now. You know what he and the director of the episode call the part of the rape where Jamie feels pleasure - "love-making". Yeah, Jamie and Jack are making love. 

 

What gets me also that they didn't have to show the rape, they could have stopped at the point where we see Jamie's ravaged nude body. It was obvious seeing his body what had happened to him. 

 

I don't know whether people here are familiar with the new Mad Max movie but that movie has a powerful rape survivor narrative. And yet there is not a single rape depicted in that film. Not a single one. You don't have to be explicit and pornographic to show the evil of rape and rape culture.

 

Jamie doesn't say that he and Black Jack "made love."  He says that Black Jack made love to him.  In his own weird, violent, disturbing, deeply screwed up way, I believe that Black Jack made actually have "loved" Jamie and for Jamie that made it even worse.  It wasn't just physical violence.  Black Jack made Jamie party to his disturbing version of "love."  Black Jack breaks him psychologically by making it not just about pain, but by also making Jamie experience pleasure.  I don't think the show ever implies that they were actually making love.  Jamie uses the term "making love," not because that's what they were actually doing, but because he doesn't know what else to call it.  Jamie thinks of rape as painful and violent, but doesn't know what to call sex that's non consensual but not painful. That's part of the reason it's so psychologically damaging for him.  He's caught in the thinking, "I didn't want it, but how can it be rape if I experienced pleasure."  I think it's really unfair to the showrunners to make it seem that they were implying it was "making love," or that Jamie's rape was anything other than horrific.

 

Full disclosure, I'm not a book reader, but I can't say I was unspoiled to the fact this is more or less where the season would end up.  I don't know if knowing roughly what happens colored my reaction to the past two episodes or not, but knowing myself I don't think it did.  I also don't see how the show did a bait and switch in terms of it's content.  It showed Jamie's lashing in great detail, after than I wouldn't think anyone would be surprised at the show showing a pretty high level of violence.

 

To be perfectly honest I'm kind of baffled about people's reactions to this.  Yes, it was disturbing to watch.  Was it the most disturbing thing I've see on TV? No, not by a long shot.  I'll rank watching characters I liked being slaughtered and a pregnant woman being stabbed in the abdomen during the red wedding, more disturbing to watch than this, but of course YMMV.  Actually I even rank Jamie's whipping as being more viscerally disturbing to watch for me than this episode (not sure why).

 

I also wouldn't call this "torture porn."  To me, torture porn is when a work tries to have it's cake and eat it too.  It's when violence is presented as, this is awful...but kind of hot too *wink wink*.  I don't think Jamie's ordeal was presented that way.  I actually don't think any of the violence on the show has really been presented that way. 

 

To be honest, I wonder if some of this pearl clutching at this episode has something to do with the sexual violence being directed at the romantic hero.  Jamie is supposed to be guy who swoops in and saves the day.  He is not supposed to be weak and vulnerable.  Even when he is being subjected to violence he supposed to stay strong and not make a sound (like he did during the lashing).  He is not supposed to scream.  He is certainly not supposed to be so weak as to give in and have an orgasm while being raped by another man (for the record I am not saying Jamie is weak for that, only that that maybe some people's internalized assumptions).  It's just not how the romantic hero is presented and I wonder if visceral reaction some people are having has something to do with the work subverting their expectations in a unwelcome way.

 

*edited because I do know how to spell expectations*

Edited May 31, 2015 by Proclone

[ennui]

To be honest, I wonder if some of this pearl clutching at this episode has something to do with the sexual violence being directed at the romantic hero.

 

No, for me it was just the unrelenting violence. There was very little plot development in this finale, just disturbing violence. It wouldn't matter who the victim was. I reached a point of "why am I watching this?" and changed the channel.

[magdalene]

Jamie doesn't say that he and Black Jack "made love."  He says that Black Jack made love to him.  In his own weird, violent, disturbing, deeply screwed up way, I believe that Black Jack made actually have "loved" Jamie and for Jamie that made it even worse.  It wasn't just physical violence.  Black Jack made Jamie party to his disturbing version of "love."  Black Jack breaks him psychologically by making it not just about pain, but by also making Jamie experience pleasure.  I don't think the show ever implies that they were actually making love.  Jamie uses the term "making love," not because that's what they were actually doing, but because he doesn't know what else to call it.  Jamie thinks of rape as painful and violent, but doesn't know what to call sex that's non consensual but not painful. That's part of the reason it's so psychologically damaging for him.  He's caught in the thinking, "I didn't want it, but how can it be rape if I experienced pleasure."  I think it's really unfair to the showrunners to make it seem that they were implying it was "making love," or that Jamie's rape was anything other than horrific.

 

Full disclosure, I'm not a book reader, but I can't say I was unspoiled to the fact this is more or less where the season would end up.  I don't know if knowing roughly what happens colored my reaction to the past two episodes or not, but knowing myself I don't think it did.  I also don't see how the show did a bait and switch in terms of it's content.  It showed Jamie's lashing in great detail, after than I wouldn't think anyone would be surprised at the show showing a pretty high level of violence.

 

To be perfectly honest I'm kind of baffled about people's reactions to this.  Yes, it was disturbing to watch.  Was it the most disturbing thing I've see on TV? No, not by a long shot.  I'll rank watching character I liked being slaughtered and a pregnant woman being stabbed in the abdomen during the red wedding, more disturbing to watch than this, but of course YMMV.  Actually I even rank Jamie's whipping as being more viscerally disturbing to watch for me than this episode (not sure why).

 

I also wouldn't call this "torture porn."  To me, torture porn is when a work tries to have it's cake and eat it too.  It's when violence is presented as, this is awful...but kind of hot too *wink wink*.  I don't think Jamie's ordeal was presented that way.  I actually don't think any of the violence on the show has really been presented that way. 

 

To be honest, I wonder if some of this pearl clutching at this episode has something to do with the sexual violence being directed at the romantic hero.  Jamie is supposed to be guy who swoops in and saves the day.  He is not supposed to be weak and vulnerable.  Even when he is being subjected to violence he supposed to stay strong and not make a sound (like he did during the lashing).  He is not supposed to scream.  He is certainly not supposed to be so weak as to give in and have an orgasm while being raped by another man (for the record I am not saying Jamie is weak for that, only that that maybe some people's internalized assumptions).  It's just not how the romantic hero is presented and I wonder if visceral reaction some people are having has something to do with the work subverting their explications in a unwelcome way.

I was quoting the director about the "love - making" part of the rape, here you can read the article I was quoting from:

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/30/outlander-season-finale-rape-scene

 

She specifically refers to this part of the rape as "love -making" and complex, etc.

 

I think this is the same director who directed the wedding episode (which I love) and there is something about the whole structure of the filmed rape scenes with the interspersed flashbacks and the growing - err - intimacy of the rape scenes that brought to mind the wedding night scenes. It comes across like a twisted and inverted version of it in some ways.

Edited May 31, 2015 by magdalene

[Proclone]

No, for me it was just the unrelenting violence. There was very little plot development in this finale, just disturbing violence. It wouldn't matter who the victim was. I reached a point of "why am I watching this?" and changed the channel.

 

That's fine.  You shouldn't watch something you don't like.  Nor was I saying that was the reason why everyone who disliked the show disliked it. I just don't really understand the level of ire being directed at the show, when for my mileage there are shows that are a lot more violent and disturbing.  I just have to wonder if it's because sexual violence is being directed at a man and that makes some people uncomfortable.  Not saying it's the reason for everyone's dislike but it may be part of it for some people and I wonder it they're even aware that it is the reason for their reaction.

 

Granted it's a different show and different level of violence, but on Game of Thrones a teenage girl was raped by a psychopath a couple of weeks ago and granted you didn't see it (you damned well heard it though), I don't see the level of anger at that act that Jamie's rape seems to incite.  As I said I don't think that the fact Jamie's male is the only reason that people dislike these past few episodes, but the level of dislike does make me wonder and I thought I would just put it out there.

[Marianne]

I haven't read the books, and thought the episode was very tough going. I wouldn't make a habit of watching television shows or movies that glorified or reveled this kind of subject matter. I also would not read a book whose objective was to supply so-called "torture porn" to those who are devotees of it. To my mind, that's not what these past two episodes have been.

What I don't understand is why so many people, this recapper included, feel it necessary to take a melodramatic stand and profess that they are "out" because they have been offended and disgusted and disappointed. Put the book down, shut the TV off. I believe that your interpretation of the episode and the dramatization of the book is wrong. But it seems you dislike or can't tolerate the content. Just stop fulminating about how you want the show to be different (and, apparently, different from the source material.) Just stop watching.

I, on the other hand, will continue to watch.

[Sakura12]

I think this episode would have been more powerful if they cut all the prison cell scenes except that first one where they wake up and Black Jack leaves him. Then, Jamie tells Claire about it bits as a time, kind of like he does in the episode without the flashbacks. That way, we know what happened to him through the lens of his pain of talking about it to Claire. I think the branding would have been more effective as a big reveal, although, yes, Claire should have noticed that burn when she was treating him.

 

I agree, sometimes not seeing everything is more powerful. Seeing how messed up Jamie is would've been enough for me. Or I think just showing that first scene and maybe having Jamie hear BJR's voice about what we he was doing in Jamie's mind would've made the episode better. Hearing "Scream for me" while Claire was setting his bones would've made me feel for Jamie and know what happened. 

 

I get this is on a pay for channel but just because they can do something doesn't mean they should. They cut out other scenes, but keep in all the torture/rape porn. Shows like the Walking Dead and GoT do have lots of violence and rape, but it's not what the show is about. When this show it seems to be what's all about. I'm not saying I need a Harlequin romance, I would hate if the show was just about that as well. But I do like my shows to be able to balance the light with the dark. This show had that in the first half of the season, then it became this dark mess of rape. I'm not interested in just seeing that all time. So as I said in the beginning of my post, I would've rather not seen it and just had to imagine the after effects with Sam's acting. Which he can do. 

 

I actually did FF all the torture and rape scenes having read about here. And it was a good episode because of that. I know what happened and I got what happened without having to see it. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Sakura12

[bearcatfan]

I was quoting the director about the "love - making" part of the rape, here you can read the article I was quoting from:

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/30/outlander-season-finale-rape-scene

 

She specifically refers to this part of the rape as "love -making" and complex, etc.

 

I think this is the same director who directed the wedding episode (which I love) and there is something about the whole structure of the filmed rape scenes with the interspersed flashbacks and the growing - err - intimacy of the rape scenes that brought to mind the wedding night scenes. It comes across like a twisted and inverted version of it in some ways.

She says "as Jamie calls it, love-making." That's completely different than her referring to it as love-making.

[ganesh]

I don't think the show pulled a bait and switch either. I think it's been clear from the get go what kind of show this would be.

I don't even think the violence and rape is over the top compared to the red wedding or even Spartacus. I mean, Xena cut a baby out of a living woman and jumped off a cliff.

I didn't have a preconceived notions before the show started about what it would be. I rarely read about shows because I think it colors the viewing experience and, frankly, show runners lie. I do wonder since we have ready access to so much information that actually taking in a show on its own merits loses its primacy.

I'm a little over the largely sanitized, pg13 entertainment paradigm that seems to dominate tv and movies. This is a messy show that's hard to watch. The typical trope of romantic hero has been thoroughly perverted. Works for me. I can't imagine he doesn't have massive post traumatic stress. I hope the show doesn't gloss that over.

[Sakura12]

Not showing it, is not glossing over it. It's letting the actors do their job and let us know what happened without us being able to see what happened. Sam is more than capable of doing that. They should've let him. 

 

I mean they don't let us know what they are saying in Gaelic. Jamie is the only one that knows what happened to him. Like Claire, we should only go by what Jamie says happened to him, since she was not there.  

 

I don't think shows need to be PG13 but they also don't need to spend so much time on the nudity and violence. It seems they like to show it, more then need to show it. 

 

I also don't think they made it clear that this show was going to be everyone getting raped or threatened with rape all the time. I didn't get that from any the previews prior to watching this. I know what time this show takes place in and I get that's what happened (and still happens today), but that doesn't mean that they need to talk about it or show it every episode. Many other things happened during that time period, show that. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by Sakura12

[attica]

Those cattle were like no ones I had ever seen before

 

They are Highland Cows, longhaired and longhorned.

 

I wonder if some of this pearl clutching at this episode has something to do with the sexual violence being directed at the romantic hero.

 

Pearl-clutching? Wow. For my part, the show has done a terrible job in developing Jamie as a romantic hero in the second half of the season. It's not that he doesn't 'save the day' -- he certainly shows up all those times Claire is being assaulted. Me, I find it hard to find heroic a man who beats his wife. He might have been developed to be interesting and complicated, but imo the show abdicated that too. It's all capture and rescue, lather, rinse, repeat.  I also agree with the HitFix reviewer's opinion that the sexual violence directed at the male lead is portrayed --by the show -- as more painful, more debilitating, more pitiable, more significant than anything undergone by all of the women characters. Which is pah-lenty. Which grosses me out and pisses me off.

 

You disagree; that's fine. Moore et al no doubt are pleased to have pleased you. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by attica

[RedheadZombie]

I haven't read the books, but I have a general understanding of how the first two novels go.  My preferred reading is historical romance, so I thought it was a slam dunk that I would love this show.  I don't.  For me, the first mistake was making Frank too likable, and I have a feeling Frank wasn't as lovely in the books.  I'm an absolute sap for romance, so I'm shocked that I'm not emotionally involved in the show.  I don't like how Frank has been treated -  I highly doubt he's already madly in love with another woman, married, and having a hell of a sex life.  I just can't get over that fact, but I want to and will continue to try.

 

From what I was shown, Claire was very much in love with her husband, and they had an excellent sex life.  While Jamie and Claire's wedding night was hot, they married to protect Claire, and I was actually surprised she didn't ask Jamie for a little time, or tell him there would be no sex.  It was a marriage of convenience, after all.  She didn't need to have sex to be protected, and it was just so disrespectful of Frank, especially since she was still determined to go back to him.  I'd feel a lot better if I wasn't convinced that Frank is somewhere grieving, celibate, and waiting for her return.  And I would feel even better if we got a talking head when Claire stayed in the past, that specifically stated she was in love with both men.  Something that makes her seem less heartless.

 

Jamie doesn't say that he and Black Jack "made love."  He says that Black Jack made love to him.  In his own weird, violent, disturbing, deeply screwed up way, I believe that Black Jack made actually have "loved" Jamie and for Jamie that made it even worse.  It wasn't just physical violence.  Black Jack made Jamie party to his disturbing version of "love."  Black Jack breaks him psychologically by making it not just about pain, but by also making Jamie experience pleasure.  I don't think the show ever implies that they were actually making love.  Jamie uses the term "making love," not because that's what they were actually doing, but because he doesn't know what else to call it.  

 

There were plenty of terms for sex back then, and Jamie would have known all of them.  I'm sure those swaggering macho Scots don't tell stories about "making love" to the bar maids.  I think it was a very poor choice to have Jamie use that term.   There were also very specific words for anal sex back then, buggering being the most common. 

 

I agree that Black Jack is in love with Jamie - to the extent he's capable of love.  I think he's closeted, and he punishes Jamie for the attraction.  He's like a typical stalker, who's obsessed and infatuated, but often ends up killing when they're rejected.  I don't have a problem with how the first incident happened.  Not that I enjoyed it, but it was rough and obviously very painful for Jamie.  What disturbed me was the so-called "love making" scene.  I wonder if people would respond differently if Jamie were a woman.  A woman who'd been violently raped, then later that rapist gently strokes her hair, anoints her with lavender oil as he caresses her, and gently makes love to her as she loudly moans.  Her rapist kisses her softly, and when he raises her head, she lifts her own as if to prolong the kiss.  Basically, they filmed it as a very sensual scene, which is an unusual choice for a rape scene.

 

It's clear Black Jack was mind-fucking Jamie, but I felt a little mind-fucked myself.  It doesn't help that Jamie seems to be somewhat quiet in his sex scenes with Claire, although she's a bit of a screamer, so maybe I just haven't heard him.  What I'm telling myself is that unlike in a book, we're not privy to Jamie's thoughts, so his response had to be obvious enough to portray an orgasm.  I didn't feel the need to see him arching his back and moaning though. 

 

Not showing it, is not glossing over it. It's letting the actors do their job and let us know what happened without us being able to see what happened. Sam is more than capable of doing that. They should've let him. 

 

I also don't think they made it clear that this show was going to be everyone getting raped or threatened with rape all the time. I didn't get that from any the previews prior to watching this. I know what time this show takes place in and I get that's what happened (and still happens today), but that doesn't mean that they need to talk about it or show it every episode. Many other things happened during that time period, show that. 

 

This isn't aimed at you, but I've read a few mentions of Sansa's storyline on A Game of Thrones, and that's a major spoiler.  Therefore, I will spoiler tag my comment. 

The actress portraying Sansa was only eighteen years old when filming the rape on her wedding night. I think since she's grown up on the show, and out of respect for her age, they handled the scene sensitively. There was no nudity except some of her back. She was bent forward, and we saw the fear on her face, but we do not see her face during the rape. Instead, the camera focuses on a boy she grew up with who's being forced to observe, and the devastation and tears in his eyes was heart breaking. It was one of the most powerful scenes in the five seasons (for me), and hearing her cries while seeing his face, moved me in a way a more graphic scene wouldn't

 

Regarding the plethora of rape and attempted rape:  Outlander was written in 1991, and rape was a staple of historical romance of the time - even hero to heroine!  It's mocked as "love at first rape".  I'm interested to see if the most recent books in the series dwell much less on rape, now that it's become more taboo in HR.

[magdalene]

 

To be honest, I wonder if some of this pearl clutching at this episode has something to do with the sexual violence being directed at the romantic hero.

 No, I would have just been as upset if this rape had happened to a female.  The only thing that would have been worse if it had been child rape.  And being called "pearl clutching" because one doesn't enjoy pornographic depictions of rape is kind of insulting.

[HumblePi]

I disagree about that synopsis. It appears that Matt doesn't understand a few things. First, just because Jamie had an orgasm does not mean he enjoyed it. It actually not that uncommon for people to orgasm during rape and it leaves them confused, ashamed and guilty. Second, It is possible for people to be happy about something but still be dealing with a trauma. Just because he's happy about the baby (still thought his reaction was muted) does not mean he's generally happy.

 

When Jamie confessed to Claire about the second rape by explaining, "I couldn't help myself Claire, it felt so good not to be in pain." That's far different than enjoying the rape. Jamie was horribly tortured and was in immeasurable pain. Having any sensation that takes that pain away, yes even having a positive and non-painful sensation of orgasm is what Jamie experienced. It was only at that point that I really understood the title "To Ransom a Man's Soul".

[magdalene]

I assume they had Jamie use "love making" because they didn't want to come across as homophobic and use "buggering".  They can sugar coat it all they want by calling it love making. I'll never think of it as anything else than brutal rape.

[HumblePi]

For me, the first mistake was making Frank too likable, and I have a feeling Frank wasn't as lovely in the books.  I'm an absolute sap for romance, so I'm shocked that I'm not emotionally involved in the show.  I don't like how Frank has been treated -  I highly doubt he's already madly in love with another woman, married, and having a hell of a sex life.  I just can't get over that fact, but I want to and will continue to try.

 

From what I was shown, Claire was very much in love with her husband, and they had an excellent sex life.  While Jamie and Claire's wedding night was hot, they married to protect Claire, and I was actually surprised she didn't ask Jamie for a little time, or tell him there would be no sex.  It was a marriage of convenience, after all.  She didn't need to have sex to be protected, and it was just so disrespectful of Frank, especially since she was still determined to go back to him.  I'd feel a lot better if I wasn't convinced that Frank is somewhere grieving, celibate, and waiting for her return.  And I would feel even better if we got a talking head when Claire stayed in the past, that specifically stated she was in love with both men.  Something that makes her seem less heartless.

 

 

There were plenty of terms for sex back then, and Jamie would have known all of them.  I'm sure those swaggering macho Scots don't tell stories about "making love" to the bar maids.  I think it was a very poor choice to have Jamie use that term.   There were also very specific words for anal sex back then, buggering being the most common.

 

I agree that Black Jack is in love with Jamie - to the extent he's capable of love.  I think he's closeted, and he punishes Jamie for the attraction.  He's like a typical stalker, who's obsessed and infatuated, but often ends up killing when they're rejected.  I don't have a problem with how the first incident happened.  Not that I enjoyed it, but it was rough and obviously very painful for Jamie.  What disturbed me was the so-called "love making" scene.  I wonder if people would respond differently if Jamie were a woman.  A woman who'd been violently raped, then later that rapist gently strokes her hair, anoints her with lavender oil as he caresses her, and gently makes love to her as she loudly moans.  Her rapist kisses her softly, and when he raises her head, she lifts her own as if to prolong the kiss.  Basically, they filmed it as a very sensual scene, which is an unusual choice for a rape scene.

 

Frank's real personality really wasn't apparent to me in the first episodes. I didn't have enough to 'take a liking' to him as a kind and loving husband. I had neutral feelings about Frank. Because of the war, Frank and Claire had been separated for five years. The trip to Inverness was Frank's idea for a second honeymoon to get reacquainted and to investigate his family heritage, specifically Jonathan 'Black Jack' Randall.

 

The marriage was contracted with Dougal to protect her from Randall. The condition was of course that the marriage be consummated on the wedding night. This is why there were men lurking on the other side of their bedroom chamber listening to make certain it was. Keep in mind that Jamie is a virgin and a "Laird" of a large estate as the only male heir. The common sexual speak amongst the men wouldn't be something that Jamie would do.

 

As far as Black Jack 'loving' Jamie. I don't think he loves Jamie in a traditional sense. I think he's covetous of his strength and fortitude. He put Jamie to the test, trying to break him in order for Black Jack to know he's only human. But Jamie doesn't break and this pushes Black Jack even more forward in his obsession to dominate him. Jamie is what Black Jack struggles to be but knows he never will.

Edited June 1, 2015 by HumblePi

[Proclone]

 No, I would have just been as upset if this rape had happened to a female.  The only thing that would have been worse if it had been child rape.  And being called "pearl clutching" because one doesn't enjoy pornographic depictions of rape is kind of insulting.

 

I would hardly call the episode "pornographic," and I'm kind of insulted by the implication that I that I somehow do enjoy watching pornographic rape scenes, just because I don't think this is the worst thing I've seen on TV, so I guess we're even.

 

They are Highland Cows, longhaired and longhorned.

 

Pearl-clutching? Wow. For my part, the show has done a terrible job in developing Jamie as a romantic hero in the second half of the season. It's not that he doesn't 'save the day' -- he certainly shows up all those times Claire is being assaulted. Me, I find it hard to find heroic a man who beats his wife. He might have been developed to be interesting and complicated, but imo the show abdicated that too. It's all capture and rescue, lather, rinse, repeat.  I also agree with the HitFix reviewer's opinion that the sexual violence directed at the male lead is portrayed --by the show -- as more painful, more debilitating, more pitiable, more significant than anything undergone by all of the women characters. Which is pah-lenty. Which grosses me out and pisses me off.

 

You disagree; that's fine. Moore et al no doubt are pleased to have pleased you. 

 

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but I've seen IMO some very over the top, melodramatic reactions to these episodes.  You don't like it, that's fine.  Don't watch it.  There are certain shows that I find the content distasteful and I don't watch them, but I don't imply their watchers are into watching torture porn.  Nothing in this episode is any worse than anything that happens on any other cable show.  I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing what you did or did not like about how this particular story was told, but I think the level of vitriol needs to be dialed back.   

 

And actually I think that sexual violence being portrayed as more awful when it's directed at a male than if it directed at a woman is a interesting conversation to have, but this is hardly the first television show to portray it as worse.  Which I think probably has something to do with the fact that it subverts people expectations. Society doesn't generally see men as potential victims of sexual violence and therefore it's seen as more shocking when it's depicted.