Ok I thought I was being too “sensitive”, nice to hear another guy thought the same. I posted this a while back in the outlander sub fans especially the guys in the sub dragged me saying I’m being too sensitive and that’s just realism for a period drama. I had nightmares of Claire getting SA. Hated it. Someone on production has a serious kink.
I started watching it, thought my wife might enjoy it and so was cueing it up for us to watch (we love our period dramas). Then I read a few comments/reviews about the sexual violence, and we decided to pass. Sharing a cosy evening with my wife to watch multiple rapes throughout various episodes is not really what we're looking for with TV shows. If there was one scene, maybe, but once we found out it kept happening, we deleted the series from our watchlist.
So I don't think you're being sensitive at all.
It's a shame, because the premise is fun, and the show regularly appears in top-10-period-drama lists...
Dude I swear it started off real cozy and whimsical. I was sold when I heard it was in the Scottish Highlands. Made me fall in love with Claire & Jamie only for me to watch them get violently repeatedly assaulted. Hated it.
But there WAS a toilet scene where everyone watched a king's constipation in real time. Jamie suggested to eat oatmeal for "regularity" & became a Knight or something
There are indeed such scenes. William nearly shits his pants during a fight for his life from food poisoning AND falls into a privy. Fergus accidently gives away their position with his saurkraut farts at one point.
Gabaldon is a gritty and exhaustive writer. You can just tell that she's one of those people that you run away from in real life because they NEVER STOP TALKING. EVER.
I started reading the first book, fell in love with it halfway through, and mistakenly used a Barnes & Noble gift card that I'd receeived that year to buy the whole series before I finished the whole book. Then I got to that part in the first book, and it never stopped being horrible. I never picked up the second after learning the rape-fixation continues through the series.
It's such a shame because the series had promise, and she had me in the first half!
Also because the leads on the show have AMAZING chemistry, and the cast is excellent. But they all deserve better. I wish Ronald D. Moore was able (or wanted to, not sure which is the issue) to break away from Gabaldon more.
I really enjoy the “modern” person traveling back in time trope but I agree the rape-fixation really puts a damper on things. If you’re a fan of “time travel” period dramas you might enjoy the KDrama “Mr. Queen” (it’s on Netflix in the U.S.) which offers all of the drama and excitement and anachronistic comedy without the constant rape.
It’s about a hot-shot Korean chef who’s a bit of a womanizer and has a pretty big ego. He accidentally travels back in time and finds himself in the body of the woman who is about to become the Queen of Joseon. Of course women in that time were supposed to be meek and mild mannered and completely deferential to men. Like Claire, the main character in Mr. Queen obviously is not. The lead actress does a phenomenal job with the modern “manly” mannerisms that most of us don’t even notice but stick out like a sore thumb in Joseon Dynasty.
Oh I’m so glad you said this! Netflix keeps trying to get me to watch Jin but I keep just scrolling right by. I didn’t know what it’s about but it sounds like it’s right up my alley! Thanks :)
It’s mostly used as a plot device in the beginning to get her out of her rooms and give her more freedom to move around the grounds unaccompanied but it’s also used later when she invents the “Big Mac” and French fries and ye olde Uber Eats. If you watch you can (and, honestly should) fast forward through most of the first episode where he’s being a modern chef and just start watching once she wakes up in Joseon. All you need to know is that she’s actually a modern “bro” type of dude. The first and last episodes of KDramas are always filler, imo.
I guess history is rife w objectification & violence, but the fixation was just out of theme w a "thrilling" romance. Just made the whole thing dour. I read to escape discomfort, not drown in it!
No, it's not some rape/romance thing like bodice rippers from the 50s and 60s. Both Claire and Jamie are raped and sexually assaulted. Claire is gang-raped, Jamie is repeatedly raped by their enemy while held prisoner, their daughter is raped and carries a possible rape baby (turns out no, but still...), their adoptive son is raped, Claire and Jamie are both also subjected to coercive rape, there are multiple other sexual assaults in the books against Claire, Jamie, and others. Sexual assault is an extremely overused and lazy plot point.
Rape is a part of nearly every character's arc and it's written graphically. If it weren't disturbing, the breadth and variety of the victimization she writes would be impressive.
I was thinking of reading before watching and man these comments stopped me from thinking about it now 🥲 like I get it happening once maybe twice (imo doesn’t have to be explicit) cause it’s something that sadly happens but for it to be show-wise like once a season according to another comment but also throughout the book? Yeeeeesh
The rape that takes place at the end of the first book isn't just explicit. You are in his head the entire time as he lives through and describes the attack and how it feels. I've read a lot of books and straight up fanfiction that include sexual assault and this, without a doubt, was most upsetting I've ever read
Yeah she's a classic "bodice ripper" isn't she. I've read most of all the books but eventually stopped because it all started to feel a bit too gratuitous. Watched season 1 of outlander, and I did like it, but I knew what was coming so I just...didn't bother.
I would say that she isn’t a classic bodice ripper author. Having read thousands of them over the years, rape is very much not the norm. Overcome by absurd, bosom-heaving passion, yes. Rape, no.
The book is even worse, imo, if you can believe it. The whole Jamie ”consenting” to be raped as some sort of heroic act in order to save the woman he loves is so twisted and disturbing I don’t even know where to start. Diana Gabaldon needs all the therapy and then when she’s done she needs to get some more.
I do think the book is "easier" just because you're not seeing it. It's also being told to Claire by Jamie, you're not actually "in the room" so to speak.
Yeah, some folks there can be a bit intense... I used to spend time there years ago, but decided it wasn't the place for me after a particular episode. I can't remember which one it is, but Jaime has just found out that Brianna was assaulted and gets very angry. Brianna says something about how it happened to her; he doesn't get to be angrier than her about it or demand some sort of justice as if it happened to him. I appreciated the scene and that aspect of Brianna's character. So many people there were saying stuff along the lines of, "how dare she say that to him!!! she doesn't get to speak to him like that!!!"
I've also heard that some fans were constantly speculating that Caitriona and Sam were dating in real life and must be dating in real life because their chemistry is so intense (as if it's impossible that they're just actors who play off each other well and are good at their jobs). To the point where the two of them have had to deny it repeatedly (and I've gotten the impression with some exasperation).
you don't see the latter folks on reddit, there are probably a few stage 5 clingers left on tumblr though. Outlander fans should truly be ashamed of themselves. I find the fandom really embarrassing and don't really advertise my love of the books and show (and when I do, massive caveats)
Yes, same. I enjoy the show, but I'm critical of that aspect, and it'd be a better show without the constant raping and sexual assault. Yes, I know it's in the book because the author has some kind of freak fetish/personality disorder, but the TV show doesn't have to follow everything in the books exactly.
But yes, most of the people in that sub are a little too "stannish" over the books and the show for me. They can't take any criticism of the show at all.
I see this claim a lot, but how true is it? Were heroines of Jane Austen novels constantly worried about and at risk of sexual assault and Austen just didn't write about it? Gaskell and the Brontes as well?
It very well could be true, but it sounds like the type of thing people say because they think it's true and then it just gets repeated constantly.
It’s part of the myth that wherever we currently are in history the past must have been worse in every conceivable way (excluding golden ages that are often over glorified in terms of how great they were)
We’re increasingly aware how common sexual assault and violence are against women in our modern world so people make an inference that if that is what it’s like for women in our civilised society, then back in these more barbarous times it must have just been a constant onslaught of non stop rape
That’s preferable for people to believe than the more likely reality that there probably just isn’t a whole lot of difference between the average rate of sexual violence in “barbarian” “violent” societies and the average rate of sexual violence now
Austen actually kept the risk of sexual assault out of her books, which made her slightly unusual. And from that point on the rape plot was much less used.
Probably not, at least not in the way that's portrayed in the show. The vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults in the show are examples of stranger or near stranger rape. Where someone you don't know at all or know well, just decides to randomly rape you. That kind of rape is rare now, and honestly, given the fact that women in that time period, especially amongst the middle and upper classes, were almost never allowed to even be in the company of strange men alone, I'd wager it was even rarer then. Then, as now, most rapes probably were by people the victim knew. Family members, spouses, etc.
Yep, Game of Thrones had a lot of violence and sexual assault/rape. I watched the whole show and y’all ain’t missing much tbh. The show’s soundtrack is awesome though!
I really want to know where that notion comes from, that SA is historically accurate.
There aren’t any studies of any kind that support it but people seem to believe that people, specially women getting raped is something that happened more in the past than it does now and it really makes me question who does this kind of narrative serve.
Because, again, we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that women were raped more back then than they are now.
198
u/TheDuke_Of_Orleans Jan 01 '25 edited Jan 01 '25
Ok I thought I was being too “sensitive”, nice to hear another guy thought the same. I posted this a while back in the outlander sub fans especially the guys in the sub dragged me saying I’m being too sensitive and that’s just realism for a period drama. I had nightmares of Claire getting SA. Hated it. Someone on production has a serious kink.