Lubitsch ’s answer to “why are people saying Outlander is a rape book?” > Likes and Comments
75 likes · Like
He doesn't really "go at her," he specifically asks her and she says yes.
After he goes at her. 'In the throes of passion'
There is still the wifebeating to consider. I do not buy into the ancient times shit because such behaviour is made to seem OK, and its especially problematic because the hero is primarily cast in a romantic light and the heroine is supposed to have a modern consciousness
Well, it's after he gives her the wedding ring. Idk, I just interpreted it differently, I guess. They seemed to do a whole lot of talking.
I know what you mean. I honestly thought that she did a good job of trying to show the difference between Jamie's mindset and Claire's. He's not doing it because she did something specifically to him, he's doing it because she did something that could have gotten anyone in their entire group killed, and it was expected of him that he be the one to punish her for it. Jamie already seems pretty "enlightened" compared to the rest of the other men in his time, so I think it would have been more unrealistic if he had listened to Claire over his obligation to the others in the group. Just my opinion, though!
at one point she was begging "no" and he decideds to continue because he wants to "finish". In reality that constitutes assault. People who actually argue about jamie being a good guy who isn't supporting violence and abuse of women, clearly don't know what a healthy relationship actually consists of...
it was shortly after the scene where jamie beats claire. he says something along the lines of your my woman and i'll take you whenever i damn well please regardless if your willing or not" she says "no" and he proceeds anyway...
it's basically hate sex but since there was no consent that is practically rape.
He does say that to her, but after they stop arguing he specifically asks her ir she wants to and she says yes. So it's pretty clear consent in my opinion.
I think you are judging a 18th century character by 21st century yardstick. It's not rape, if she (Claire) does not feel like she was raped. And yes, he is turned on when beating her (after risking his life to free her from Jack Randall as a result of her disobeying his request to stay put); and he also never touches her as such during a long time of being together.
He (Jamie Fraser)does not "beats the shit out of her " did he "beat" her yes in the fact that he whips her in punishment after disobeying him put her life and other in danger and Jamie and other have to defender her. You have to remember the time frame this story takes place where women are considered the property of their husbands. The only damage she sustained was a sore bum and her pride. He does promise to never beat her again which he keeps.
Historical wife beating is not the same as said wifebeater being romanticized
He did enjoy it though and got aroused by it,
Everything in the book was written with the idea of historical accuracy. In the 1700's, men were encouraged to "beat" their wives like they beat their children. My father took a belt to me as a child, because that is how he was taught. And even though I don't hit my child, I don't feel as if my father was a barbarian and abused me because he did. And truly, the violence of the book is part of the setting. There is also a great deal of love and kindness and generosity and OMG, such passion and adventures, that to dismiss the story of Jaime and Claire as a "rape" book is just a trajedy. This is absolutely NOT 50 Shades of Grey. DG writes so well you can completely lose yourself in these stories. I give these books the highest rating possible.
He got aroused by beating her and watching her cry, though.
the problem is that this book portrays this behaviour as things 'men do' -
No, the problem is that in the 18th century, this *was* "things men do." It's an accurate portrayal of how a man like Jamie probably would have behaved.
I can't believe all the women basically saying that Jamie did nothing wrong in whipping her. He does make it seem like she is his property so he will have her whenever he pleases. Sure it's the 1700's but that's not ok. Women, just like Claire, forgive Jamie for all of his actions too quickly. Jamie is a flawed hero and is nowhere close to the heroic, romantic, warrior that people make him out to be. He does have some of those traits, but he also is a liar, criminal, and a wifebeater. As the series continues, he starts to change (for the better in my opinion), but women still go back to the beginning when in fact he was all of those bad things.
Um, her modern sensibilities would have still been "woman born in 1918" sensibilities which are still not that of a current modern woman.
Oh: this sounds nothing like the series on Netflix. I never saw Jamie mistreat Claire in the show...
But have you guys even read the books because this is so far from the truth it's not even funny. To say he "beat" her is to put it into the crudest language possible. He literally just spanked her. How many of you have children that you have spanked when they were misbehaving? That's exactly what Jamie did to Claire. They talked about it BEFORE he did it and AFTER he did it. After the incident they thoroughly talked about it and even talked about it in later books. They talked about the premise of it and Claire makes Jamie promise never to do it again. He agrees, "evolves" from the primitive outlook of "disciplining your wife", and upholds his promise. Never was Jamie vicious and he didn't even want to do it to begin with, he was pressured by the other people in his group he was travelling with. Yes, Claire forgave him but it was much on the premise of "Forgive but never forget" and she gave him hell for the rest of the trip pretty much. Next, when this says that Claire is reluctant and Jamie "goes at her" is again very crude and inaccurate. The reason why Claire was reluctant had nothing to do with being attracted to Jamie or not wanting to have sex with him, it was purely because Claire still felt obligated to her husband back in the 1900s and felt like she was cheating on him.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nicole
(new)
Jan 13, 2015 01:08PM
He doesn't really "go at her," he specifically asks her and she says yes.
reply
|
flag
After he goes at her. 'In the throes of passion'There is still the wifebeating to consider. I do not buy into the ancient times shit because such behaviour is made to seem OK, and its especially problematic because the hero is primarily cast in a romantic light and the heroine is supposed to have a modern consciousness
Well, it's after he gives her the wedding ring. Idk, I just interpreted it differently, I guess. They seemed to do a whole lot of talking.I know what you mean. I honestly thought that she did a good job of trying to show the difference between Jamie's mindset and Claire's. He's not doing it because she did something specifically to him, he's doing it because she did something that could have gotten anyone in their entire group killed, and it was expected of him that he be the one to punish her for it. Jamie already seems pretty "enlightened" compared to the rest of the other men in his time, so I think it would have been more unrealistic if he had listened to Claire over his obligation to the others in the group. Just my opinion, though!
at one point she was begging "no" and he decideds to continue because he wants to "finish". In reality that constitutes assault. People who actually argue about jamie being a good guy who isn't supporting violence and abuse of women, clearly don't know what a healthy relationship actually consists of...
it was shortly after the scene where jamie beats claire. he says something along the lines of your my woman and i'll take you whenever i damn well please regardless if your willing or not" she says "no" and he proceeds anyway...
it's basically hate sex but since there was no consent that is practically rape.
He does say that to her, but after they stop arguing he specifically asks her ir she wants to and she says yes. So it's pretty clear consent in my opinion.
I think you are judging a 18th century character by 21st century yardstick. It's not rape, if she (Claire) does not feel like she was raped. And yes, he is turned on when beating her (after risking his life to free her from Jack Randall as a result of her disobeying his request to stay put); and he also never touches her as such during a long time of being together.
He (Jamie Fraser)does not "beats the shit out of her " did he "beat" her yes in the fact that he whips her in punishment after disobeying him put her life and other in danger and Jamie and other have to defender her. You have to remember the time frame this story takes place where women are considered the property of their husbands. The only damage she sustained was a sore bum and her pride. He does promise to never beat her again which he keeps.
Historical wife beating is not the same as said wifebeater being romanticized
He did enjoy it though and got aroused by it,
Everything in the book was written with the idea of historical accuracy. In the 1700's, men were encouraged to "beat" their wives like they beat their children. My father took a belt to me as a child, because that is how he was taught. And even though I don't hit my child, I don't feel as if my father was a barbarian and abused me because he did. And truly, the violence of the book is part of the setting. There is also a great deal of love and kindness and generosity and OMG, such passion and adventures, that to dismiss the story of Jaime and Claire as a "rape" book is just a trajedy. This is absolutely NOT 50 Shades of Grey. DG writes so well you can completely lose yourself in these stories. I give these books the highest rating possible.
He got aroused by beating her and watching her cry, though.
the problem is that this book portrays this behaviour as things 'men do' -No, the problem is that in the 18th century, this *was* "things men do." It's an accurate portrayal of how a man like Jamie probably would have behaved.
I can't believe all the women basically saying that Jamie did nothing wrong in whipping her. He does make it seem like she is his property so he will have her whenever he pleases. Sure it's the 1700's but that's not ok. Women, just like Claire, forgive Jamie for all of his actions too quickly. Jamie is a flawed hero and is nowhere close to the heroic, romantic, warrior that people make him out to be. He does have some of those traits, but he also is a liar, criminal, and a wifebeater. As the series continues, he starts to change (for the better in my opinion), but women still go back to the beginning when in fact he was all of those bad things.
Um, her modern sensibilities would have still been "woman born in 1918" sensibilities which are still not that of a current modern woman.
Oh: this sounds nothing like the series on Netflix. I never saw Jamie mistreat Claire in the show...
But have you guys even read the books because this is so far from the truth it's not even funny. To say he "beat" her is to put it into the crudest language possible. He literally just spanked her. How many of you have children that you have spanked when they were misbehaving? That's exactly what Jamie did to Claire. They talked about it BEFORE he did it and AFTER he did it. After the incident they thoroughly talked about it and even talked about it in later books. They talked about the premise of it and Claire makes Jamie promise never to do it again. He agrees, "evolves" from the primitive outlook of "disciplining your wife", and upholds his promise. Never was Jamie vicious and he didn't even want to do it to begin with, he was pressured by the other people in his group he was travelling with. Yes, Claire forgave him but it was much on the premise of "Forgive but never forget" and she gave him hell for the rest of the trip pretty much. Next, when this says that Claire is reluctant and Jamie "goes at her" is again very crude and inaccurate. The reason why Claire was reluctant had nothing to do with being attracted to Jamie or not wanting to have sex with him, it was purely because Claire still felt obligated to her husband back in the 1900s and felt like she was cheating on him.
