What the hell is with the male rape scene and unrequited homosexual love side plot? - Outlander (2014) Discussion

[–] Tinkse7en (64) 4 years ago

I agree it was brutal, & the repercussions of it were never dealt with in the film series, as it was in the books. Actually, the brutality was far worse in canon, & Claire had to fight to save Jamie's life on several levels. I'm sorry the filmmakers chose not to show this: I've always seen this as a pivotal plot point, & I think that it would be useful to survivors of violent rape/abuse. Let's not pretend that men don't get raped, although actually it happens to little boys more often.But prison rapes happen every day. Don't think that because we don't hear about it, that it doesn't happen.

DG did well to put Lord John as an honorable man. (He's actually my fav character)

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

So Claire basically re-raped Jamie in the books by having him relive what happened when she gave him opium. This is in the books. And in the series Claire refuses to allow Jamie to heal before they're thrust into trying to stop Colloden. I hate Claire so much for what she's done to Jamie. Her slapping him and kicking him even though he's recovering from being raped and tortured. Then more or less thinking only of herself in Paris by going to the hospital to help Mother Hildegard. Yet Jamie has do meet with the Prince Charlie, handle the Comte St. Germain, and the resurrection of Black Jack Randall..... When she told Jamie she hated him after losing Faith, any and all my feelings for Claire sort of petered out.

And yes, Lord John is an amazing character.

reply

[–] Tinkse7en (64) 3 years ago

Well. You're right in your take on it. But DG canon tidies that up with the monastery scene (still gutted they didn't show the underground hot spring scene- what a waste of R- rating)

Claire forced him to confront his demon, & that may be unrealistic- I can't say. But it IS acknowledged that talking about rape/sexual abuse is key to getting over it.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

The point I'm trying to make is that those scenes where Claire hit, slapped, and kicked Jamie were disgusting. Not the way to treat a man who'd just been tortured and raped. Also expecting him to just "jump" under the covers so shortly after being tortured and raped is ridiculous. I don't know how long the hot springs stuff took as I have no intention of reading the books, but the point is that a rape victim wouldn't "jump right back in". It took me at least a year to get over what was done to me. Add in what Black Jack did to Jamie in terms of the torture with his hand and such, and again expected him to want to do anything for at least a year is unrealistic. Ask any one of the men who were tortured at The Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War and they'll tell you how long it took them to "get back into it."

reply

[–] Tinkse7en (64) 3 years ago

I guess I came by my perception of it thru the book, wherein it was sort of a mystical, pseudo-pyschological process the Claire performed. It seemed logical within the universe of the books, but in hindsight, I should have applied critical thinking- of course it would not have been that simple.

reply

[–] strntz (10843) 4 years ago

I actually skipped through those parts. I honestly didn't need to see anything graphic...

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

Would a female rape scene be more to your liking?

reply

[–] voltaire2121 (357) 3 years ago

Yes.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

WOW, what a bereft thing to say. If you like rape scenes with women, why not check out Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible." There's an anal rape of a woman scene that might be up your type of alley.

reply

[–] voltaire2121 (357) 3 years ago

Seen it, jacked off to it multiple times, next.

reply

[–] StinkyPoopyPants (2695) 2 years ago

Pig.

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

Yeah, that whole thing turned me off from this series before I even started watching.

I remember media websites were fawning all over this series like it was the second coming, but then they seemed enthralled with the portrayal of the male deuterogonist being sodomized, almost to death. And then he was sodomized to the point of losing his mind and began to enjoy it.

WTF?

In reality people like that don't recover. They commit suicide. This happens all the time in prison.

When men get raped like that they are never the same.

The reality is that men no longer see themselves as men, because they've been stripped of their masculinity in the most humiliating and degrading way imaginable.

It's obvious this was some serious rape-fantasy indulgence on behalf of the author (likely a female) who wanted to prowl the story of a broken man who has to be revived through the power of femininity!

In reality, the dude would have offed himself as soon as he snapped out of the delusion, because no man would bear to be able to live with himself thereafter. Many men say the exact same thing -- that if they were brutally sodomized they would never tell anyone, or just stop living altogether.

reply

[–] voltaire2121 (357) 3 years ago

The whole thing was bizarre, perverted for homos, nasty. The guy sacrificing himself for the woman saying, rape me instead and I promise I won't resist you, ewww... what? If I were him, I would just tell him, just rape the woman not me, at least that's "natural".

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

I would willingly die trying to fight my way out of there.

There's honor in death, especially when you die fighting for what you love. I would have respected the character WAY more that way, too.

I always think back to that video of the homeless man who rushes an armed kidnapper who held a woman on some steps while the police were trying to talk the gunman down. The homeless man ate an entire magazine of bullets to get close to the gunman but managed to struggle with the gunman long enough for the woman to get free, after which point the police shot and incapacitated the gunman (though interestingly they didn't shoot to kill). The homeless man, however, died shortly after the woman was brought to safety.

It seemed like the sort of thing you would see in a movie... yet it happened in real life!

I had -- and still have -- a lot of respect for that homeless guy. Jamie? Not so much.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12318) 3 years ago

The author was Diana Gabaldon, and yeah, she used Claire to "rescue" Jamie after he was recovered from the prison, but he wanted to die so bad. The mental rescue scene was very graphic in the novel, but they didn't expand on the brutality of the male rape scene in the book like they did on the show, and it was very hard to watch. I was not the least bit sorry when Black Jack Randall was killed in the battle of Culloden later on.

I did find it unrealistic that Claire was able to help Jamie overcome it so easily in the books, because even if you save a man from such horrors, both physically and mentally, he's gonna take a long time to recover. It was more realistic in the tv show that he still was having PTSD problems in Paris while they were trying to stop Culloden.

Another unrealistic thing I found was, even when Claire came back in time to the 1760s, she and Jamie still ran into trouble, despite there being no war between the Scots and the English anymore. It's almost like trouble followed them wherever they went, no matter what time period it was. Or Gabaldon wrote Jamie to almost be like some kind of superhero, able to do things many men were not willing or capable of doing, and with Claire there to help him or patch him up, whichever he needed first.

I did notice that after the first two books, the story started to get very boring, and all the excitement petered off, despite Gabaldon's efforts to keep things interesting with the ocean voyage to America, and Claire and Jamie's adventures in North Carolina. Honestly, it didn't have the excitement and action the first two books had, despite there being less rape involved. I noticed it happening on the show as well, so apparently it wasn't just me feeling that way after reading the books.

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

I did find it unrealistic that Claire was able to help Jamie overcome it so easily in the books, because even if you save a man from such horrors, both physically and mentally, he's gonna take a long time to recover. It was more realistic in the tv show that he still was having PTSD problems in Paris while they were trying to stop Culloden.

That makes sense.

I know some men who have survived sexual assault note that it's something they live with everyday, especially the guilt of not being able to stop it or the shame of sometimes having been aroused by the event. Guilt and shame are a terrible thing to deal with, and in a time like that it seems hard for me to believe a guy like Jamie would ever overcome that.

Another unrealistic thing I found was, even when Claire came back in time to the 1760s, she and Jamie still ran into trouble, despite there being no war between the Scots and the English anymore. It's almost like trouble followed them wherever they went, no matter what time period it was. Or Gabaldon wrote Jamie to almost be like some kind of superhero, able to do things many men were not willing or capable of doing, and with Claire there to help him or patch him up, whichever he needed first.

I'm oftentimes willing to overlook some of these flaws, but only if there are enough grounded elements to suspend disbelief long enough to stay immersed in the story. Not only that, but the story also has to maintain consistency in being believable, otherwise there's just no reason to care beyond the unsuspecting elements of shock value.

If there are too many outlandish instances taking place when it comes to the circumstances (apart from the obvious sci-fi aspects) it makes it harder and harder to accept the fiction as immersive or entertaining. In the case of Outlander, a guy like Jamie willing to undergo the trauma of sodomy to save Claire just seemed beyond the pale to me.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12318) 3 years ago

Oh it was even more insane than that. Claire came back and discovered Jamie had been both running a printing business, and smuggling whiskey to the Scots, since the English had outlawed it. That, and he had a politically incorrect Chinese buddy who would do all sorts of things that we weren't allowed to see on tv, such as him being a crazy, drunken acrobat that wore his own clothing, versus the toned down Chinese guy we got on the tv show.

Or Jamie has his nephew swim out to an island in a smuggler's cove to get some treasure he found during his time in a different prison (long story) and the nephew gets kidnapped by smugglers/pirates who they find out later were working for Geillis Duncan, the witch. She had apparently set up her own little criminal kingdom in the Caribbean during the 20-year-gap between when Claire last saw her, and when she and Jamie traveled there to rescue his nephew.

It almost feels like they never could catch a break, not even when settling down their own homestead in North Carolina. All it took was a few years, and the Revolutionary War started!

(This is all from the books, I got bored with the tv show and didn't watch anything after Claire escaped that ship she and Jamie were traveling on).

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

>>>The author was Diana Gabaldon, and yeah, she used Claire to "rescue" Jamie after he was recovered from the prison, but he wanted to die so bad. The mental rescue scene was very graphic in the novel, but they didn't expand on the brutality of the male rape scene in the book like they did on the show, and it was very hard to watch. I was not the least bit sorry when Black Jack Randall was killed in the battle of Culloden later on.<<<

Yeah, she used opium to "heal" Jamie by forcing him to re-enact the rape. I feel the brutality of what Jack did to him needed to be shown. Hell if it can be shown in relation to women, why not men? That's why I was drawn to "Outlander", the daring to actually do it. Personally after they lost Black Jack, the show fell apart. Without a good antagonist the protagonists fall apart. I mean the Comte St. Germain was hardly on Black Jack level, and the Browns are laughable as was what happened to Claire in the final episode of season 5.

>>>I did find it unrealistic that Claire was able to help Jamie overcome it so easily in the books, because even if you save a man from such horrors, both physically and mentally, he's gonna take a long time to recover. It was more realistic in the tv show that he still was having PTSD problems in Paris while they were trying to stop Culloden.<<<

What was unrealistic about it was a nurse who is sworn to help people who are wounded, smacking and kicking the crap out of Jamie who was convalescing with the many wounds he had. I was pissed beyond reason with them forcing Jamie into all that crap with Prince Charlie. I mean he hadn't had any time to recover, and there was Claire forcing him into this deception in Paris. That scene in "La Dame Blanche" always pisses me off because it's all Claire and no Jamie. Then when she's telling him about Faith, I lost all care for Claire when she told him she hated him. As if she had a reason.

>>>Another unrealistic thing I found was, even when Claire came back in time to the 1760s, she and Jamie still ran into trouble, despite there being no war between the Scots and the English anymore. It's almost like trouble followed them wherever they went, no matter what time period it was. Or Gabaldon wrote Jamie to almost be like some kind of superhero, able to do things many men were not willing or capable of doing, and with Claire there to help him or patch him up, whichever he needed first.

I did notice that after the first two books, the story started to get very boring, and all the excitement petered off, despite Gabaldon's efforts to keep things interesting with the ocean voyage to America, and Claire and Jamie's adventures in North Carolina. Honestly, it didn't have the excitement and action the first two books had, despite there being less rape involved. I noticed it happening on the show as well, so apparently it wasn't just me feeling that way after reading the books. <<<

Necessitated to fill out almost ten books worth of story. Jamie is as Gabaldon says, The King of Men. Full stop. He's supposed to rescue Claire no matter how much trouble she gets into. The books after book two are nothing but bodice rippers. Throw in a sex scene or three and it keep the females coming back to swoon irrespective of whether there's a plot.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12318) 3 years ago

A few years ago, after "Outlander" first came on tv, mom got a companion book (and a very fat one at that) that covered material in both the books and the tv show. You're not gonna believe what happened after the episode about Jamie being raped came out.

Real-life men who had been victims of that kind of trauma, actually thanked Diana Gabaldon! Can you believe that?! :O I was totally not expecting that, but now it makes sense. Too often victims like that are forced to keep quiet, due to the humiliation, the powerlessness, and the mind-ripping that occurs during the event(s). It causes many of them to commit suicide. And then to finally see someone address it on tv with no holding back, and to watch the man's wife fight to keep him alive, it really moved these men.

The most moving scene during Claire's "rescue," was where Jamie brought up the most surprising revelation. He worried Claire didn't love him anymore, or see him as less of a man because of what happened. When she told him she loved him no matter what, after all they had been through, that part moved me to tears.

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1051) 3 years ago

So male on male rape disgusts you, but male on woman rape excites?

As for what happens to men when they're raped and if they commit suicide, ask some of the men who returned from the Hanoi Hilton if they committed suicide? They were anally raped with steel bars and had bamboo shoots stuck up their penises. Yet they still live. They might never be the same but why are they universally different than women who have been anally raped? As for being stripped of masculinity, it's only that way if you let it.

When George R. R. Martin wrote the rape of Danaerys Targaryen in "Game of Thrones", was that wrong or rape-fantasy indulged on his part? I have issues with Diana Gabaldon on many fronts, but to have had Jamie the hero of the piece raped was daring. And it wasn't being revived by the power of femininity, it was the power of love by his wife.

In reality they are changed, not defeated. There was a story of a gang rape of a woman on a bus in India. They also sexually assaulted and maimed her boyfriend and raped her into a coma. That young man survived and lives today to campaign in her name to bring awareness of rape to India. He lives with himself through his remembrance of her and his work in order to make sure this doesn't happen to another human being by changing laws.

As for Jamie Fraser, he "snapped" out of it because he knew he had the love of his wife and godfather to help him in his recovery.

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

So male on male rape disgusts you, but male on woman rape excites?

Who said anything about excites?

As for what happens to men when they're raped and if they commit suicide, ask some of the men who returned from the Hanoi Hilton if they committed suicide? They were anally raped with steel bars and had bamboo shoots stuck up their penises. Yet they still live. They might never be the same but why are they universally different than women who have been anally raped? As for being stripped of masculinity, it's only that way if you let it.

Some still live. Many were broken beyond repair.

None of that detracts from my point that many men do commit suicide after experiencing such transgressions.

When George R. R. Martin wrote the rape of Danaerys Targaryen in "Game of Thrones", was that wrong or rape-fantasy indulged on his part?

In one case a depraved Captain rapes another man out of depravity. In the other case, a woman is raped because she's forced into a marriage with a man who wants an off-spring. This isn't defending it, but the second case (Danaerys' case) literally happens in real life ALL the time and has been a staple of human history, and continues to happen in many nations where forced marriages are common. This is not to say it's okay, it's to say that it's a representation of a common and horrible trend that happens in actual human history.

...to have had Jamie the hero of the piece raped was daring. And it wasn't being revived by the power of femininity, it was the power of love by his wife.

Not really daring, just gratuitous. Oz was a daring HBO show that at least acknowledged a more realistic depiction of male-on-male rape. And your phrase "power of love by his wife" is literally just a tautology of my statement about the "power of femininity" saving Jamie.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2953) 3 years ago

The trolling aside, this thread actually addresses a legitimate point. The way the rape scenes were filmed was absolutely disgusting. Degenerate, hypocritical Hollyweird never in a million years would approve of a male on female rape scene to be filmed in such a pointlessly graphic, drawn out & most disturbing, eroticized manner complete with depicting female rape victim having an orgasm while being brutally sodomized. Let alone have such a scene be critically praised. No. The torches would be brought out for the immediate cancelation of the show. Just look at the comparative firestorm reaction to the Sansa rape scene on GOT that literally wasn't even shown & was exclusively depicted as a horrific act of violence.

It's hypocritical double standard where the attitude is that male victims of sexual assault don't matter so it's okay to film such a scene in an offensively homo-eroticized manner in a way where the victim appears to end up "enjoying" it. I've seen a number of degenerates on gay discussion boards talking about how "hot" the scene was and how "turned on" they were by it. The entire sequence is just a glaring example of Hollyweird's complete degeneracy and hypocrisy.

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 3 years ago

You're absolutely right.

Even insinuations of rape from men towards women in fiction is now frowned upon or highly dissuaded in fictional media, even if the depiction is steeped in realism or used to tell a compelling story.

The only time it seems someone can get away with rape in fiction these days is when a woman is involved and it's sort of a rape-fantasy scenario like in Outlander. For instance, in the show the main female character is gang-raped, but not in a typically humiliating and violent manner like in real life, where most women die from blood-loss or the trauma caused by vaginal tearing (something that happens often during war-rapes). Instead, the character is simply tied up and each man has his way with her -- it's somewhat gratuitous but nothing like one particularly shocking sequence at the end of the film Street Heart, which certainly captured a more realistic scenario involving men having their way with a woman, which left the character emotionally and mentally broken.

The scenes and scenarios in Outlander are all too fantasized, like when the daughter was raped by the pirate; it was just a few ear-whispers and a couple of gentle-caressing moments away from coming straight out of a romance novel.

But the gay rape sequence of Jaime was altogether something else. You could tell this was some deep female fetishizing come to life. And you're right that Hollyweird and all the degenerates that stockpile across the interwebs (though hilariously enough YouTube automatically shadowbans your comments if you even dare to call a member of the Rainbow Reich a "degenerate") flocked to and praised the scene even though it was highly unrealistic, disgusting, and debased.

I suppose it fits with the saying: the only standards the Left have are double standards.

reply