S02.E04: La Dame Blanche

[WatchrTina]

Just for grins I tweeted Terry Dresbach (the costume designer) to see if SHE thought it was plausible for Jamie to get those bite marks through the costume that Sam was wearing. The lady knows her fabrics and how those pants fit.  I don't know if she'll answer but I'll share if she does.

In the meantime, yep lets agree to disagree.  The Scot and The Sassenach did.

[nodorothyparker]

I don't think he did either.  It feels much more likely that with him being in the unsettlingly good mood he was in over the Randall reveal that he wasn't so quick to shoo the woman away this time and things quickly got out of hand before he put on the brakes.  But I also don't care enough either way to devote a ton of time trying to puzzle it out because in the end I don't think it matters.

[peacefrog]

It was a good episode. They fit so much into it. Surprisingly I was still a bit bored and impatient. I just find this part of the series laborious. I don't remember the Comte having a wife. The actress playing her was on Vikings right? Will she play a part in this? I can't remember the Comte's game plan. Are we to assume that he is working to help the Jacobites? Is he working off screen with Geillis at this point, because I can't imagine these two not finding each other if they are in the same city.

Also the stairs leading up to Raymond's were they used in GoT? 

[WatchrTina]

One of the fun things about The Scot and The Sassenach podcast is that they share their initial thoughts immediately after the broadcast on Saturday night and then (beginning this season) the do a follow-up show about the same episode on Thursday night in which they discuss the feedback they got from the fans and sometimes they change their minds about things.  I look forward to that second podcast because I suspect this topic (how Jamie got the bite marks) is going to generate a LOT of feedback.  But, to your point nodorothyparker, like you I gave hardly any thought to how Jamie got the bite marks in the book.  I didn't wonder if it happened in the salon or in a private room or what he was wearing.  It didn't matter.  But TV is a visual medium and I've seen Madam Elise's now.  I just can't imagine anyone, and especially not Jamie, engaged in "69" on one of the tables in the parlor/bar area.  I have to imagine that he went into one of the private rooms with one of the whores.  But yeah, maybe I'm overthinking this.  It is a great series of scenes and I'm really happy with the show right now.

Edited May 4, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Dust Bunny]

3 hours ago, Andorra said:

I'm sure we will hear more about "La dame blanche" in the next episode. If I remember correctly, he only told her about the story he invented later in the book ,too,

I woke up this morning thinking that I bet the next episode is when Jamie and Claire tell Murtagh about Claire being a time-traveler. Jamie will explain he described Claire as "La Dame Blanche" to protect her, between her being a healer and acting other ways that are usual for women at that time. That's an easy transition for explaining to Murtagh why that's the case. I would think the timing would be right, since Murtagh will be making his oath then. He should know what all his oath entails. 

I enjoyed this episode, but all the dark interiors and exteriors kind of took away some of the jolly from me. (All the more reason why I love that outside scene with Murtagh and Fergus.) Don't get me wrong - the sets and lighting are gorgeous and deserving of all accolades. But I always have to turn off all the lights in the room and adjacent hallway to see what's happening on-screen. I'm excited for the next episode, because I think we have the Royal Stud outing. The previews have Claire outside in the sun. Maybe I get seasonal affective disorder by watching TV, I dunno. And I hope they can show Fergus discovering the joy of horses. They might not be able to pull off the stunt, but seeing him all excited will be fun.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[Summer]

I was really happy to see Claire's beautiful, unruly mop of curls that frame her face and complement her so nicely.  I was getting tired of all the formal up do's, they made Claire/Cait look so matronly, I missed "Claire hair".  I rewatched the fortress speech/reconnection scene again this morning and kudos to those who said it was reminiscent of the wedding, totally agree.  Jamie's nightshirt, his hair, Claire's nightgown and the beautiful haunting music (is that flute?) Gorgeous.  And when he looked at her as she walked into the alcove he looked almost exactly as he did in the Wedding episode.  

Also, guys, enlighten me.  On Twitter someone posted an article entitled "Outlander had another character raped and it needs to stop" And the consensus from the replies was that, A: it is in the book and B: It has to happen to progress the storyline between Mary and Alex.  I'm asking honestly, does the rape of Mary really progress/impact the storyline with Alex?  I honestly don't remember.  From the show's perspective Mary and Alex have already declared their love for each other so how would her rape progress that storyline?  

I really love the Comte St. Germaine character, he is just deliciously evil with those silent stares.  Well done, casting dept, once again.  

Edited May 1, 2016 by Summer

[Lion]

6 minutes ago, Summer said:

Also, guys, enlighten me.  On Twitter someone posted an article entitled "Outlander had another character raped and it needs to stop" And the consensus from the replies was that, A: it's is in the book and B: It has to happen to progress the storyline between Mary and Alex.  I'm asking honestly, does the rape of Mary really progress/impact the storyline with Alex?  I honestly don't remember.  From the show's perspective Mary and Alex have already declared their love for each other so how would her rape progress that storyline?  

Mary almost certainly would have married that old dude if she hadn't been raped.  She and Alex declaring love to one another would have been unlikely to change that because neither were much likely to go so against societal expectations and run away together, at least not as things were then. How Mary is treated by society after her rape really opens the door to her and Alex having a physical relationship.  

[Summer]

Ahhhh, yes, Lion!  I completely forgot about her being promised to the old guy, so yes it make perfect sense.   

[WatchrTina]

The review by Tom + Lorenzo is up and it includes this bit:

Quote

Worse – BY FAR – is how much of this, we’re sorry to say, can be laid at Claire’s feet. We literally muttered “What the hell?” when Claire announced she was going to the hospital to work on the very day she was hosting a formal 18th Century French dinner party (an ENORMOUS undertaking that she has never done before nor has she any familiarity with). One can argue how admirable it is that Claire felt the call of duty when she heard that people were hurt. And that’s true, for the most part. But it also speaks to how ridiculously reckless Claire can be. This wasn’t, after all, just any old dinner party. It was the one event upon which their entire plan hinged; a plan that would have saved thousands of lives if they pulled it off. This was not the day for her to be pulling another shift at the hospital, no matter how talented she may be.

Oh.  Damn.  They're right.  In the book, Claire and Jamie hold these dinner parties all the time.  It's part of Jamie's job as a wine merchant.  And in the book, I don't think BPC or Sandringham are present at the dinner that is interrupted by Mary's screams so it's not the single most important dinner party they ever threw -- the one that could make or break all their efforts in France.  Yeah, Claire deciding to run off to the hospital on that day (and inexplicably inviting Mary along) is a flaw in the episode.  As a reader I whistled past it but for TV-only viewer, I can see how that could be a problem.

Here's the review: http://tomandlorenzo.com/2016/05/outlander-la-dame-blanche/

Edited May 1, 2016 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

Being reckless is who Claire is. It's a part of her character. So it didn't even occur to me what she was doing was reckless.

[Andorra]

Okay, so Diana herself has come out on CS and has said that Jamie is wearing "silk pants and not Duraflex working jeans". So the whore applied her bitemarks with Jamie having the pants on!

[Dejana]

5 hours ago, Summer said:

Also, guys, enlighten me.  On Twitter someone posted an article entitled "Outlander had another character raped and it needs to stop" And the consensus from the replies was that, A: it is in the book and B: It has to happen to progress the storyline between Mary and Alex.  I'm asking honestly, does the rape of Mary really progress/impact the storyline with Alex?  I honestly don't remember.  From the show's perspective Mary and Alex have already declared their love for each other so how would her rape progress that storyline?  

 

5 hours ago, Lion said:

Mary almost certainly would have married that old dude if she hadn't been raped.  She and Alex declaring love to one another would have been unlikely to change that because neither were much likely to go so against societal expectations and run away together, at least not as things were then. How Mary is treated by society after her rape really opens the door to her and Alex having a physical relationship.  

Of course there's always the option for Gabaldon to have told the story in a different way (or the show's writers to have adapted things differently). Mary needs to be such a shallow timid mouse because why, exactly? Sure, there were women like that in history, but in any time, you've always had people who were a bit more savvy or daring. Or, write it so that the old dude kicks the bucket before the marriage, or some horrible accident happens, leaving Mary disfigured somehow and the shallow old coot dumps her. Poor sad Mary finds comfort in the arms of Alex, because there have always been people who threw caution to the wind regardless of the practicalities, and the rest of the story plays out more or less the same way. Considering that rape features in yet another plot this season, then if there's a third season, the extremely dubious consent issues on both sides of the Jamie/Geneva episode, not to mention Bree and Claire later on...though I suppose that if the show goes on, it will continue to garner the reputation of having a "rape problem", even if they'd completely refigured the Mary Hawkins story. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Dejana

[Athena]

I really like TV Louise. The actress is really charming. The character in the show and the books is a twit, but TV Louise seems to have more depth. She's too good for Charles. I guess Charles must have some charm, but he's mostly a pretentious, spoilt brat. Louise's husband seems nice. I guess Louise went with BPC because he is a Prince albeit a dethroned, exiled one.

I love Master Raymond and wish there was more of him in the books. I find the Comte an interesting character so both of them work for me. What disappoints me is that a lot of these characters don't show up again in the books. The Comte gets one little story, but Raymond only gets allusions. Feels a bit of a waste of a character.

I will have to say that the tonal shifts in this episode were a bit... odd TV wise. I liked a lot of the moments but the dinner party scenes ranged from awkward, tense, and silly. In a book these shifts are more understandable, but harder to distill for TV. 

[Summer]

In this episode Jamie didn't explain "La Dame Blanche" to Claire, did he?  That must have been confusing to the non book readers to see the men who are attacking Claire and Mary suddenly run away in fear.  I'm pretty sure he didn't explain it to her in this episode, tho.  Maybe he will next ep....

I am kind of ambivalent about Master Raymond's character, but I liked how he said he's fascinated by things out of their time (or something like that) and stared right at Claire.  

And count me in as a fan of Show!Louise.  I think the actress is just adorable-those dimples!  She's done a lot with the character, congrats to her!  The actress thanked the fans on Twitter for their positive response to her performance.  

[WatchrTina]

Okay, Andorra you made me go look.  Wow that Compuserve forum is active!  And Diana posts a lot there.  I had no idea.  

What I saw was a lot of people posing the same questions I did,( i.e., how, exactly, did Jamie get those bites?)  Which indicates that it was not clear from what we saw in the episode.

 One poster shared that is it definitely possible to leave bite marks through heavy clothes because her younger son was a biter and "he left very clear tooth marks on this brother's backside though a pair of jeans and underwear, so Jamie could have had his pants on the whole time and, being the gentlemen he is, not willing to throttle the feisty whore."  That is the post to which Diana replied with the quote above about silk pants vs. jeans.  That is all she said in that post.  So while I LOVE the fact that Diana weighed in on the topic I'm aware that Diana has also said that the book is the book and the show is the show.  Diana's opinion on what happened to TV!Jamie in this episode is not canon.  TV!Jamie is in a whole different place than Book!Jamie when this event takes place. TV!Jamie has not had sex with his wife since Wentworth.  I still say it's a lot more plausible from what we saw and heard in the show that he did get to 3rd base with a whore before running home to his wife than the notion of his being bit by a whore twice through his silk pants while sipping wine in the parlor.  Jamie actually brings up the sexual position "69."  THAT's not in the book.  That is a deliberate line in the episode.  Can anyone really imagine someone engaged in "69" while still dressed?  And if you can, what do you think he meant when he said "She was more interested in the 6 and the 9 could go hang."  I assume that meant she was enjoying receiving and not being very generous with the giving (which is pretty damned unprofessional for a whore if you think about it).  Nope, I still say TV!Jamie took his PTSD-afflicted-but-feeling-better-today self to Madam Elise's, messed around with a whore for a bit to see what would happen and when visions of Black Jack Randall did NOT appear in his head to spoil the mood, ran home joyfully to share this turn of events with his wife.

Edited May 4, 2016 by WatchrTina

[Dust Bunny]

14 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Jamie actually brings up the sexual position "69."  THAT's not in the book.  That is a deliberate line in the episode.  Can anyone really imagine someone engaged in "69" while still dressed?  And if you can, what do you think he meant when he said "She was more interested in the 6 and the 9 could go hang."

Actually, the 69 reference is in the book. 32% in on my Kindle (location 5731). In the book, Jamie says, "That lady seemed preoccupied wi' rather lower numbers. I think she meant to settle for the six, and the nine could go hang."

Edited May 1, 2016 by Dust Bunny

[Andorra]

Listen to the podcast. Toni Graphia also says that Jamie wouldn't bed another woman and that Claire knows he wouldn't, but that she's pregnant and hormonal and that makes her upset. Jamie on the other hand is thinking he's telling her good news. That he has lost the burden that was holding him down and that he "finally felt like a man again". 

Nowhere is implied that Jamie actively sought out the whore. For me it is clear that SHE was the one coming on to HIM and trying to involve him as we have seen in the scene last episode, where he's barely noticing her.

For me it is clear that this time he IS noticing and that he gets aroused by it, but I don't see at all where he would hire himself a hooker to get himself excited for his wife. Sorry, no way. For me that would be completely out of character. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Andorra

[WatchrTina]

Quote

Actually, the 69 reference is in the book. 32% in on my Kindle

Oh bravo Dust Bunny!  So it is. Thanks for the direction.  In that episode Jamie has been the victim of "aggressive marketing" by not one but two whores.  One proposes "69", the other one was exclusively interested in the "lower number" and she's the one that left the bite.  I read the whole scene that follows Claire spotting those "battle scars" and the whole argument that ensues.  Sigh.  I just LOVE those two.  Book!Jamie and Book!Claire are in a very different place in their relationship than our TV couple so the rationale behind that scene does not translate directly to the situation faced by the TV!Jamie & Claire, but re-reading that does help a bit.

Quote

Listen to the podcast. Toni Graphia also says that Jamie wouldn't bed another woman and that Claire knows he wouldn't, but that she's pregnant and hormonal and that makes her upset.

The podcast is up?  Finally!  I know where I'll be for the next hour. And I agree that Jamie would not "bed" another woman.  The question remains whether or not letting a whore arouse him but NOT having carnal knowledge of her would violate his code of honor.   But I think I'm beating a dead horse here.

BTW, Terry did answer my tweet.  I wrote:  "Fans are debating whether Jamie could have gotten those bite marks on this thighs while still wearing his pants.  Any comment?"  She replied:  "I guess someone pulled his pants down."  I'll take that not as confirmation of my point of view but rather confirmation that the episode leaves a lot open to interpretation.

Edited May 2, 2016 by WatchrTina

[peacefrog]

3 hours ago, Dejana said:

 

Of course there's always the option for Gabaldon to have told the story in a different way (or the show's writers to have adapted things differently). Mary needs to be such a shallow timid mouse because why, exactly? Sure, there were women like that in history, but in any time, you've always had people who were a bit more savvy or daring. Or, write it so that the old dude kicks the bucket before the marriage, or some horrible accident happens leaves Mary disfigured somehow and the shallow old coot dumps her. Poor sad Mary finds comfort in the arms of Alex, because there have always been people who threw caution to the wind regardless of the practicalities, and the rest of the story plays out more or less the same way. Considering that rape features in yet another plot this season, then if there's a third season, the extremely dubious consent issues on both sides of the Jamie/Geneva episode, not to mention Bree and Claire later on...though I suppose that if the show goes on, it will continue to garner the reputation of having a "rape problem", even if they'd completely refigured the Mary Hawkins story. 

I completely agree. These are good options for Mary. It is lazy writing on DG's part going back to rape. I always thought she could also just be found in a compromising position of her own choice with a man. Same end result and also another way to show how unfair societal mores towards women were.  I would think the writers would want to start taking more ownership of the characters and story by now but it doesn't look that way. 

I feel they are almost scared to go off books except with Frank. I am suspicious that DG is ok with this because I suspect she is planning to go a different direction with him.

[nodorothyparker]

I've always thought her reliance on sexual violence as her goto plot device was lazy writing.  I know the first time I read the series by the time I got to Breath of Snow and Ashes and what happens to Claire there, I just almost couldn't with all of it anymore, no matter how much else I may have loved the series.  We get it that these were violent times where it especially sucked to be women.  There are plenty of ways to show that that don't involve going to the same well over and over and over again.  They very easily could have Mary's uncle or fiance intercept those hearts and flowers letters she was gushing about and draw their own conclusions.  They could have caught them in what appeared to be an inappropriate embrace.  Think of the powerful commentary on women's roles in this society it would have made for had she been thrown over or publicly branded a whore for trying to exert control over her own life.   And it still could have landed her firmly in the Randall family's orbit where she needs to be.

I've said it before.  This show is known as Rapelander in some corners and when you pull back enough to look at it with an objective eye, you can kind of see why.

Edited May 2, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[peacefrog]

I feel like how the use of sexual violence in OL could be whole interesting new topic thread here for both non book readers and book readers but am concerned it will get heated. Maybe a more general how violence is portrayed or is it better to keep to episode threads?

[nodorothyparker]

My only concern with opening it to everyone is that those of us who have read the books know that there's even more coming and to whom.  I know that colors how I view a lot of this.  Because any review you read mentions that they really really need the show to be done with the subject and all you can do is kind of shake your head.

For example, while I know we're fast approaching one of my least favorite aspects of the book where Jamie is continually thrust back into his rapist's orbit and that alone makes me want to throw something, knowing that twenty-odd years from now that Jamie's daughter is also going to have her own bizarre ongoing relationship with her rapist makes me want to throw something huge and flammable.

Edited May 2, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

No One Can Keep Their Swords In Their Sheaths At A Disastrous Outlander Dinner Party

When Jamie and Claire's schemes go up in flames, neither of them is the one who ends up getting burned.

[Athena]

15 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

My only concern with opening it to everyone is that those of us who have read the books know that there's even more coming and to whom.  I know that colors how I view a lot of this.  Because any review you read mentions that they really really need the show to be done with the subject and all you can do is kind of shake your head.

For example, while I know we're fast approaching one of my least favorite aspects of the book where Jamie is continually thrust back into his rapist's orbit and that alone makes me want to throw something, knowing that twenty-odd years from now that Jamie's daughter is also going to have her own bizarre ongoing relationship with her rapist makes me want to throw something huge and flammable.

I am with you and others on disliking the sexual violence through the series. This is actually one of my favourite books in the series but even then,  there are things I am not keen on, namely that Jamie is forced into his rapist's orbit and Claire's almost lack of empathy for in this section of the books. I hope the show proceeds quickly with the duel and gelding.

The topic on sexual violence in this series would not be recommended. I do not see that going well because it is one of those topics many people do not have a neutral stance. It would be triggering for some people since analysis of sexual violence will make people uncomfortable. However, it does not mean we can not continue to dissect and analyze the topic in the book and episode threads. It will come up again on the show. 

While the book series and show does feature sexual violence heavily (nearly all the main characters suffer from it one way or the other), it is in my opinion, not the defining trait of the series and the reason that many of us read the books or enjoyed it. It does not define the characters and I wish it had not happened to them, but it is something I have to accept as part of this series.

[nodorothyparker]

It's not the defining trait of the series.  There's so much other good stuff there about love and family and what makes those things with lots of fun history stuff and some time travel thrown in for good measure.  I almost always feel compelled in these discussions to add the disclaimer that I do really love this series, warts and all.  I just wish the author had made some different choices for at least some of this rather than going to the sexual violence and characters' reactions to it well over and over again.  And I can't fault people who haven't read the books and thus don't know about all the other good stuff in there noticing the obvious pattern or frequency when it's on their TV week after week.

[AheadofStraight]

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 4:22 AM, Grashka said:

Oh, and Claire making love to Jamie with her exposed pregnant belly, was the best and the most beautifully shot sex scene this show has done so far IMO

There was an article that said Sam and Cait had to fight for her to wear the prosthetic and it wasn't prepared for the scene initially. How ridiculous would it have been for Claire to have Cait's flat belly in that scene when she's supposed to be so far along into her pregnancy at this point??

[Archery]

They probably would just have blocked the scene differently, rather than show a flat belly, since Claire, like every pregnant woman ever, strokes her belly constantly in every other scene. 

DIA is not my favorite Big Book -- I tend to get lost in the intrigue, and I have a hard time imagining the scenes in my head.  I think the show, and this episode specifically, does a great job in conveying the different characters' interweaving games, just by framing and focus.  When I watched the second time, I paid close attention to the expressions on the people in the background, and could very much read their thoughts.  So fantastic. 

When Jamie started full-out smiling after Claire revealed that BJR was alive, I thought he was going to drop a serious sarcasm bomb and then go ballistic.  His actual response was chilling.  I did love, love, love Claire's tease to Murtagh "I don't know what you were so worried about." 

Speaking of love. Fergus.  OMG.  I rewound again and again that little hand gesture he makes when he's describing Mary Hawkins being self-contradictory because she is so sad but she is wearing  ". . . eh, parfum."  It is just perfect.  It's just those little moments that can't possibly be scripted, yet absolutely make you believe in the character. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Archery

[lottiedottie]

On May 1, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Summer said:

In this episode Jamie didn't explain "La Dame Blanche" to Claire, did he?  That must have been confusing to the non book readers to see the men who are attacking Claire and Mary suddenly run away in fear.  I'm pretty sure he didn't explain it to her in this episode, tho.  Maybe he will next ep....

I am kind of ambivalent about Master Raymond's character, but I liked how he said he's fascinated by things out of their time (or something like that) and stared right at Claire.  

And count me in as a fan of Show!Louise.  I think the actress is just adorable-those dimples!  She's done a lot with the character, congrats to her!  The actress thanked the fans on Twitter for their positive response to her performance.  

I haven't read the book yet, and yes! I was totally confused about why the attackers suddenly ran away. I thought maybe I missed something from earlier in the episode (I watched half on Sunday and the rest today) so I assumed I just wasn't paying attention. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what 'la damn blanche' is. I was coming here to ask what that was all about when I saw your comment.

[emilyplum]

It's been a while (to be honest, only a month or so, ha!) since I reread DIA, but I seem to remember it not being immediate when Jamie explained La Dame Blanche.

I continue to love Murtagh and Fergus, and even more so when they're together.  Save Murtagh! 

[toolazy]

It wasn't immediate.  She learned about it when he came home with the bite marks and he explained that the only way he could get the peer pressure to stop was to tell them that his wife was La Dame Blanche.  I'm not sure how much time passed, but some.

[Summer]

1 hour ago, lottiedottie said:

I haven't read the book yet, and yes! I was totally confused about why the attackers suddenly ran away. I thought maybe I missed something from earlier in the episode (I watched half on Sunday and the rest today) so I assumed I just wasn't paying attention. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what 'la damn blanche' is. I was coming here to ask what that was all about when I saw your comment.

I can imagine how confusing that must have been to non readers.  Did you want to know what "La Dame Blanche" is all about?  I'll put it behind spoiler tags just in case you didn't  

Spoiler

It's French for White Witch and it is how Jaime described Claire  to the ladies at the brothel as a means to avoid participating in the "entertainment" as she would use her witchcraft on them.  In the book Jamie told Claire about the name before the attack, I'm pretty sure.  

[AheadofStraight]

Toni Graphia specifically mentions in the script annotations that the name hasn't been explained yet: "The street attack is where we hear the attackers call Claire "La Dame Blanche!" before they run away. We don't know why just yet...but that's where the title of the episode comes from."  Probably next episode?

[lottiedottie]

1 hour ago, Summer said:

I can imagine how confusing that must have been to non readers.  Did you want to know what "La Dame Blanche" is all about?  I'll put it behind spoiler tags just in case you didn't  

  Hide contents

It's French for White Witch and it is how Jaime described Claire  to the ladies at the brothel as a means to avoid participating in the "entertainment" as she would use her witchcraft on them.  In the book Jamie told Claire about the name before the attack, I'm pretty sure.  

Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining that. I felt like I was supposed to know what that was all about in this episode, but they must be going to explain it next episode.

[WatchrTina]

I'm looking forward to the explanation for "La Dame Blanche" because that is a tactic that Book!Jamie uses to explain (to BPC and his companions) his refusal to have sex with whores. (And yes, my memory is that Claire only finds out about that after Mary's rape, when she wonders aloud what they meant by "La Dame Blanche" and Book!Jamie, somewhat sheepishly, explains.)  I'm looking forward to how TV!Claire will react to that information -- information she really could have used during the big bedroom fight in this episode. Remember that moment when Claire says to BPC "You've been bitten" and then goes on to say "There seems to be an epidemic of that lately" with a significant look at Jamie (to which Jamie just rolls his eyes.)  I'm expecting a snarky comment back in the opposite direction when TV!Jamie explains the lengths he's had to go to to AVOID having sex with whores. I hoping he'll say something that will put to rest Claire's (and my) suspicions about what exactly he got up to in that brothel.  

One of the things I love about both the book and TV versions ofJamie and Claire is that even when things are forgiven, they not necessarily forgotten -- which makes the two of them more believable and relatable to the audience. 

ETA: Thanks to a tweet by Terry Dresbach I've learned about a new Outlander website that reviews the episode with an eye exclusively toward the costumes.  Terry likes it and participates in the comments.  They identified the fabric used for several men's coats as "silk satin."  I though silk and satin were two very different things and made a point of that in an earlier post (probably because I've had to sew with icky polyester satin once upon a time and it feels very different from the soft silk of my best scarves and sweaters.)  Apparently I was wrong so I stand corrected.  If you are interested it checking out the review it is at : http://www.frockflicks.com/outlander-costume-recap-season-2-episode-4/

ETA2:  Diana just posted an excerpt from DIA on Facebook -- the very same scene that Dust Bunny referred me to above (the scene when Jamie comes home from a brothel with a bite mark on his thigh.)  In the comments the same debate broke out there that we've been having here -- with one woman being "disappointed" in TV!Jamie for taking off his pants in the presence of a whore and Diana saying he didn't necessarily have to take them off to get that mark.  This debate is raging everywhere.  Too funny.

Edited May 5, 2016 by WatchrTina

[A Beaverhausen]

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that I could live without all the sexual violence, but I have to give DG props for showing how much of it there actually was back then and how often men could get away with it.  Women lived in fear for a good reason, IMO.

Also, I have to doff my hat to DG for her deft handling of the Scots accent.  Especially after reading some forums and seeing fans try to do it.  A little goes a long way and kudos to her for getting it right.

[Christabelle3]

There is still a lot of sexual violence. There statistics out there about the large percentage of women (one in six or 17%) who have been the victims of at least one sexual assault. It may be a convenient plot device but it is totally believable, as is the lasting trauma many victims suffer.

[MsProudSooner]

Am i the only one who thinks, "Claire, don't drink that!  You're pregnant!", every time she has a glass of wine or whiskey.  :-)

[Lion]

On 5/6/2016 at 11:58 AM, A Beaverhausen said:

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that I could live without all the sexual violence, but I have to give DG props for showing how much of it there actually was back then and how often men could get away with it.  Women lived in fear for a good reason, IMO.

Women still live in fear.  Men still get away with it.  

I appreciate the sexual violence in the series and on the show.  It's not that I like watching it or that I get off on it.  It's that it's honest.  It may be the ugly part of life, but it's still a part of life.  It's not treated as an afterthought or something to include because it's shocking.  We see the results and consequences of all of this violence and trauma, everything from sexual violence to domestic violence to institutionalized violence.  None of the writers involved shy away from showing us how horribly damaged people can be by all of this.  It's as real as the everyday work of tossing pee on wool to set the dye or the dangerous job of boar hunting.  

18 hours ago, MsProudSooner said:

Am i the only one who thinks, "Claire, don't drink that!  You're pregnant!", every time she has a glass of wine or whiskey.  :-)

I cringe, but it's good they leave in the drinking as a 1940's woman wouldn't have necessarily abstained.  Diagnosing and understanding fetal alcohol syndrome is still a ways off.  

[katville]

I love how delightfully bitchy St. Germain was in this episode.

[Kim0820]

 

On 5/1/2016 at 4:14 PM, Andorra said:

Listen to the podcast. Toni Graphia also says that Jamie wouldn't bed another woman and that Claire knows he wouldn't, but that she's pregnant and hormonal and that makes her upset. Jamie on the other hand is thinking he's telling her good news. That he has lost the burden that was holding him down and that he "finally felt like a man again". 

Nowhere is implied that Jamie actively sought out the whore. For me it is clear that SHE was the one coming on to HIM and trying to involve him as we have seen in the scene last episode, where he's barely noticing her.

For me it is clear that this time he IS noticing and that he gets aroused by it, but I don't see at all where he would hire himself a hooker to get himself excited for his wife. Sorry, no way. For me that would be completely out of character. 

The hookers needed money - I recall where Ned went into a brothel and 3 of them were all over him very insistently trying to get him as a customer.  So that they could be aggressive to Jamie doesn't seem too out there.

On 5/1/2016 at 8:17 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I've always thought her reliance on sexual violence as her goto plot device was lazy writing.  I know the first time I read the series by the time I got to Breath of Snow and Ashes and what happens to Claire there, I just almost couldn't with all of it anymore, no matter how much else I may have loved the series.  We get it that these were violent times where it especially sucked to be women.  There are plenty of ways to show that that don't involve going to the same well over and over and over again.  They very easily could have Mary's uncle or fiance intercept those hearts and flowers letters she was gushing about and draw their own conclusions.  They could have caught them in what appeared to be an inappropriate embrace.  Think of the powerful commentary on women's roles in this society it would have made for had she been thrown over or publicly branded a whore for trying to exert control over her own life.   And it still could have landed her firmly in the Randall family's orbit where she needs to be.

I've said it before.  This show is known as Rapelander in some corners and when you pull back enough to look at it with an objective eye, you can kind of see why.

It was much harder for women, but even so, there were probably not rapes every other day.  Probably rape was a capital crime, too.  It was probably mostly marital/incestuous or other abusive situations.