Jean’s answer to “why are people saying Outlander is a rape book?” > Likes and Comments
24 likes · Like
the fact that you think a scene where Claire is screaming "no Jamie don't" and "you're hurting me", and describes what he is doing to her as beating her womb, as consensual sex is horrifying
To Jean Cole: to me, the whole point of the scenes toward the end where they discuss how they were raised, whether they were beaten, the prior violence that occurred, etc., is to show how Jamie is changing. Originally he is a product of his times, but over time he begins to see that his prior beliefs are wrong, and he changes. To show him as a 21st century feminist in a story set in the 18th century would be silly -- Jamie is _not_ living in this day and age. Just because a character endorses violence doesn't mean the text endorses it. Does the text imply that what Jamie did is correct or admirable? I didn't see any evidence of that. It's clear that Claire is livid about what happened, and if Jamie didn't change, I can't imagine Claire would have stayed with him, given what we know about her character.
He doesnt change though... Claire says no to having sex in the final scene but he doesn't take no for an answer. And obviously including violence and rape doesn't mean endorsing it but thats the whole problem with this book is it does endorse it by making the scenes where Jamie wont take no for an answer sexy
Very well said Jean Cole about the domestic abuse scene. I cringe when I hear people justify it, and I won't be brainwashed by the scenario and circumstances created by the author to make it seem OK. In fact, I wrote a whole commentary dissecting that whole scene and its circumstances. I also believe that scene has nothing to do with History or justice, as many readers believe, but was put in the book to appeal to the "spanking fetish" readers. Nothing against those who like that thing, but the way the scene was in the book, it was just not a spanking but a severe beating, and just didn't seem to fit with what I thought was a historical fiction novel. Not to mention that kind of thing should be mutual, and clearly was not.
I stopped half way through, but to me it wasn't just domestic violence. In the aftermath of the beating Jamie refuses to listen to Claire when she refuses sex. This is rape, even if they are married. The only reason this is problematic in the book (after all, historically it IS accurate) is that Claire is a modern woman with modern sensibilities. Having her just submit to domestic abuse and spousal rape makes the narrative seem as if it justifies this behaviour, something that completely turned me off the book.
Did you guys miss where before the spanking Jamie tells her flat out that if a man had done as she did he would find himself hanging from the nearest tree? You're the ones being misogynistic. Just because she was a woman doesn't mean she's above paying for her actions.
Lol "extreme domestic violence" being spanked with a belt on the bum? Absurd feminist drama queen. This was a great scene depicting a reasonable expectation of the clash of a "modern woman" married to a man of the 18th century. Obviously it isn't acceptable in our society but your characterization of it is ridiculous and clueless.
Lucky for me your opinion is not only meaningless, it is also ridiculous and clueless.
I stopped reading the book after the rape scene. Good for people that can get past it but I couldn't.
A lot of Americans seem to have a severe problem nailing what consent is. The funny thing is, it is so easy to pin down: the moment someone says "no" to any kind of activity done to them (sex or else) and it is done anyway, consent is not in evidence. Full stop.
The lack of consent can be mitigated by rightful superior decision, e.g. for children (parents), prison inmates (the government) or at work (the boss), but these are always strictly defined and absolutely always exclude sexual advances or behaviour and violence.
In most western legislations a husband forcing himself sexually on a wife is not committing "domestic violence", he is raping her. Beating her up is domestic violence and a breach of consent as well. Pounding her against her will is rape. Even if she has an orgasm it is rape. It also is rape when she says no and is actively fucked into a yes to appease him and save her face.
I have a very hard time understanding why this is so difficult to grasp.
And lastly, don't start to excuse this with "...but some women mean 'yes' when they say 'no'..." That may well be so, but all ethical roleplayers I know then use a safeword to know when the "no" actually means "no". And in vanilla relationships the gentleman wishing to stay legal ASKS. It's easy, people have a mouth and can do that. They just ask.
Halfway through the first book Jamie forcibly has sex with Claire... she does indeed tell him no... that is rape. End. Of. Story.
“Gentle he would be, denied he would not.”
When a woman says no, and the man refuses to be denied, that is rape
Did none of you understand the part where she travelled back in time? Or did I imagine that, and this book actually takes place in 2015? Must be me then I guess, because there's absolutely no way that all of you could be dim enough to realise that this is how women were treated in the 1700s, and are still sometimes treated today. Just because a book covers things like rape and sexual abuse, doesn't mean it ENDORSES rape and sexual abuse. A book HAS to be able to depict a fictional scenario without prissy little girls getting their panties in a twist over the ridiculous idea that this means that the author supports men treating their wives as objects. Yes, Jamie spanks her, which is wrong according to today's standard, but was absolutely a normal way to treat not just women, but disobedient people in general. Public floggings weren't made up by this author, you know? I'd also like to point out that there are PLENTY of people who still today support spanking of disobedient children, so we haven't really come that far, considering that we hit our weakest 300 years after the happenings of this book takes place.
Sorry but when she says she loves him after he basically beat the crap out of her I was done. Yes she traveled back in time but she was not from that time period and shouldn't have accepted it. Instead she falls in love with her rapist and abuser. No thanks.
This whipping scene was apparently cut from the Netflix series, because he never lays a hand on her in the show. It seems to give the show a very different feel from the book, I imagine? Now I'm afraid to read the book.
//The thing that horrified me was that there is an incidence of extreme domestic violence that is justified by the perpetrator and accepted by the recipient with this explanation: "I told you to stay in a particular place till I returned. You disobeyed me, and by disobeying me you put yourself and me and my men in danger. My father whipped me when I disobeyed but it was to teach me a lesson and I'm glad he did because it made me the man I am today. I had to whip you to impress upon you how important it is that you listen to me when I tell you to do something." He then makes a solemn vow never to lay a hand on her again and he keeps that vow for the rest of the book. I understand that in the context of clan warfare this probably makes sense. But in this day and age the idea that a woman should accept the explanation of "you misbehaved and I didn't want to do it but I had to and I'll never do it again" makes me shudder. This is precisely the explanation chronic domestic abusers use to keep their victims in line. //
If we apply the logic you use about Jamie's rape of Claire not actually being rape because the brutal sex after she tries to say no is actually consensual, then this isn't ~really~ domestic violence because she accepts his justification.
Lordy. You seriously need to read up on consent and coercion.
@shira no the whipping scene is in the netflis series. you may have forgotten but I clearly remember it haha
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Korrina
(new)
Sep 30, 2015 11:44PM
the fact that you think a scene where Claire is screaming "no Jamie don't" and "you're hurting me", and describes what he is doing to her as beating her womb, as consensual sex is horrifying
reply
|
flag
To Jean Cole: to me, the whole point of the scenes toward the end where they discuss how they were raised, whether they were beaten, the prior violence that occurred, etc., is to show how Jamie is changing. Originally he is a product of his times, but over time he begins to see that his prior beliefs are wrong, and he changes. To show him as a 21st century feminist in a story set in the 18th century would be silly -- Jamie is _not_ living in this day and age. Just because a character endorses violence doesn't mean the text endorses it. Does the text imply that what Jamie did is correct or admirable? I didn't see any evidence of that. It's clear that Claire is livid about what happened, and if Jamie didn't change, I can't imagine Claire would have stayed with him, given what we know about her character.
He doesnt change though... Claire says no to having sex in the final scene but he doesn't take no for an answer. And obviously including violence and rape doesn't mean endorsing it but thats the whole problem with this book is it does endorse it by making the scenes where Jamie wont take no for an answer sexy
Very well said Jean Cole about the domestic abuse scene. I cringe when I hear people justify it, and I won't be brainwashed by the scenario and circumstances created by the author to make it seem OK. In fact, I wrote a whole commentary dissecting that whole scene and its circumstances. I also believe that scene has nothing to do with History or justice, as many readers believe, but was put in the book to appeal to the "spanking fetish" readers. Nothing against those who like that thing, but the way the scene was in the book, it was just not a spanking but a severe beating, and just didn't seem to fit with what I thought was a historical fiction novel. Not to mention that kind of thing should be mutual, and clearly was not.
I stopped half way through, but to me it wasn't just domestic violence. In the aftermath of the beating Jamie refuses to listen to Claire when she refuses sex. This is rape, even if they are married. The only reason this is problematic in the book (after all, historically it IS accurate) is that Claire is a modern woman with modern sensibilities. Having her just submit to domestic abuse and spousal rape makes the narrative seem as if it justifies this behaviour, something that completely turned me off the book.
Did you guys miss where before the spanking Jamie tells her flat out that if a man had done as she did he would find himself hanging from the nearest tree? You're the ones being misogynistic. Just because she was a woman doesn't mean she's above paying for her actions.
Lol "extreme domestic violence" being spanked with a belt on the bum? Absurd feminist drama queen. This was a great scene depicting a reasonable expectation of the clash of a "modern woman" married to a man of the 18th century. Obviously it isn't acceptable in our society but your characterization of it is ridiculous and clueless.
Lucky for me your opinion is not only meaningless, it is also ridiculous and clueless.
I stopped reading the book after the rape scene. Good for people that can get past it but I couldn't.
A lot of Americans seem to have a severe problem nailing what consent is. The funny thing is, it is so easy to pin down: the moment someone says "no" to any kind of activity done to them (sex or else) and it is done anyway, consent is not in evidence. Full stop.The lack of consent can be mitigated by rightful superior decision, e.g. for children (parents), prison inmates (the government) or at work (the boss), but these are always strictly defined and absolutely always exclude sexual advances or behaviour and violence.
In most western legislations a husband forcing himself sexually on a wife is not committing "domestic violence", he is raping her. Beating her up is domestic violence and a breach of consent as well. Pounding her against her will is rape. Even if she has an orgasm it is rape. It also is rape when she says no and is actively fucked into a yes to appease him and save her face.
I have a very hard time understanding why this is so difficult to grasp.
And lastly, don't start to excuse this with "...but some women mean 'yes' when they say 'no'..." That may well be so, but all ethical roleplayers I know then use a safeword to know when the "no" actually means "no". And in vanilla relationships the gentleman wishing to stay legal ASKS. It's easy, people have a mouth and can do that. They just ask.
Halfway through the first book Jamie forcibly has sex with Claire... she does indeed tell him no... that is rape. End. Of. Story.
“Gentle he would be, denied he would not.”When a woman says no, and the man refuses to be denied, that is rape
Did none of you understand the part where she travelled back in time? Or did I imagine that, and this book actually takes place in 2015? Must be me then I guess, because there's absolutely no way that all of you could be dim enough to realise that this is how women were treated in the 1700s, and are still sometimes treated today. Just because a book covers things like rape and sexual abuse, doesn't mean it ENDORSES rape and sexual abuse. A book HAS to be able to depict a fictional scenario without prissy little girls getting their panties in a twist over the ridiculous idea that this means that the author supports men treating their wives as objects. Yes, Jamie spanks her, which is wrong according to today's standard, but was absolutely a normal way to treat not just women, but disobedient people in general. Public floggings weren't made up by this author, you know? I'd also like to point out that there are PLENTY of people who still today support spanking of disobedient children, so we haven't really come that far, considering that we hit our weakest 300 years after the happenings of this book takes place.
Sorry but when she says she loves him after he basically beat the crap out of her I was done. Yes she traveled back in time but she was not from that time period and shouldn't have accepted it. Instead she falls in love with her rapist and abuser. No thanks.
This whipping scene was apparently cut from the Netflix series, because he never lays a hand on her in the show. It seems to give the show a very different feel from the book, I imagine? Now I'm afraid to read the book.
//The thing that horrified me was that there is an incidence of extreme domestic violence that is justified by the perpetrator and accepted by the recipient with this explanation: "I told you to stay in a particular place till I returned. You disobeyed me, and by disobeying me you put yourself and me and my men in danger. My father whipped me when I disobeyed but it was to teach me a lesson and I'm glad he did because it made me the man I am today. I had to whip you to impress upon you how important it is that you listen to me when I tell you to do something." He then makes a solemn vow never to lay a hand on her again and he keeps that vow for the rest of the book. I understand that in the context of clan warfare this probably makes sense. But in this day and age the idea that a woman should accept the explanation of "you misbehaved and I didn't want to do it but I had to and I'll never do it again" makes me shudder. This is precisely the explanation chronic domestic abusers use to keep their victims in line. //If we apply the logic you use about Jamie's rape of Claire not actually being rape because the brutal sex after she tries to say no is actually consensual, then this isn't ~really~ domestic violence because she accepts his justification.
Lordy. You seriously need to read up on consent and coercion.
@shira no the whipping scene is in the netflis series. you may have forgotten but I clearly remember it haha
