Outlander: Waiting for April [SPOILERS: First Season]

[Calibandar]

18 hours ago, Risto said:

In this particular case, I am not sure it's hypocrisy. For example, one shirtless scene in Thor was made for the sole purpose of titillating imagination of the viewers for no other purpose. Even Kenneth Branagh said he was uncomfortable because he had to ask Hemsworth do it. In Game of Thrones, we don't have one or two such scenes, we can't even count it. And the worse in GoT is that they are glaringly obviously mismatched and unnecessary. The accentuation on sex led us to Podrick the stud and Tommen the stud. Point? None... Especially the one about Podrick. 

 

Of course it's hypocrisy to lay blame at the feet of GoT and not at the feet of Outlander, especially when its worse in Outlander, it's just that there its the man.

I liked that Chris Hemsworth scene btw, he looked awesome. I'm sure no one whines about women getting some great eye candy in a film like that. It's not as if that is what Thor is about and as if the film has nothing else going for it. Just like GoT has eye candy for women but a lot else going for it in terms of story and character.

By the way, never noticed that show Pod or show Tommen are supposed to be studs. They look normal to me.

[Mladen]

13 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Of course it's hypocrisy to lay blame at the feet of GoT and not at the feet of Outlander, especially when its worse in Outlander, it's just that there its the man.

I liked that Chris Hemsworth scene btw, he looked awesome. I'm sure no one whines about women getting some great eye candy in a film like that. It's not as if that is what Thor is about and as if the film has nothing else going for it. Just like GoT has eye candy for women but a lot else going for it in terms of story and character.

The problem is that in Outlander it isn't worse based on sole premise of entire thing. In-universe, his nakedness is supposed to evoke reaction in Claire, whose POV is the central to the story. Basically, this is her story and the TV show in many aspects is her own POV. That said, his nakedness is intended for her and is meant to arouse her - Claire, character in the series. 

On the other hand, with GoT it isn't the case. Some scenes are not intended to arouse the other character in the story or to cause any sort of reaction etc. Some scenes in GoT are intended solely for the audience. There is absolutely no way going around that as well, director of GoT did spoke about it. We should not forget that entire term sexposition originates in GoT. 

As for Hemsworth, yes, he looked awesome, but at least according to the interview Brannagh gave to Jonathan Ross, the scene was later added. The point is that just like Jaime, Thor, at one point becomes eye candy. And unlike in GoT, both character's shirtlessness/nudity caused some in-universe reaction.

20 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

By the way, never noticed that show Pod or show Tommen are supposed to be studs. They look normal to me.

You mean Pod "whores won't charge me how good I am in sack" Payne  and Tommen "can't get it enough" Baratheon? Yeah, they are quite the normal kids

[Crixus]

Wasn't Pod's magical dick magical enough for seasoned prostitutes to eschew payment (gigantic eye roll because it isn't as though that's the most tired cheesy trope ever)? Ditto for Tyrion in Braavos... I don't think you can get any more straight-up male wish fulfilment than that. Let's not pretend GoT is uniformly highbrow; it has its fair share of male gratification via lowest common denominator. 

I also find it disingenuous to compare female and male sexism. Sure, let's do that. Doesn't matter that sexism directed at women is historically prevalent, institutionalised, and systemic. It's only in the last 50 years or so that women have been able to express their sexuality and personality (even there, shit like 'slut!!' comes up; of course, a sexually promiscuous man is 'a stud': HYPOCRISY ALERT!).   

Whereas men have been using and victimising women for, oh, I don't know... thousands of years? And yet, some are tripping over themselves to indignantly and self righteously equate the two. Talk about an absence of context. 

It's also pretty fucking amusing to see people decry Outlander as porn. It's 1 show out of a gazillion with equal opportunity nudity: Claire is naked as often as Jamie is, a fact some fail to notice, weirdly enough. And that equal opportunity is somehow porn? 

All right then.

Oh, and I am not a Gabaldon fan. I read the first 2 books and gave the series up. I also agree with a few negative observations about the book and show. Doesn't change the fact that it's a fucking breath of fresh air to watch something where 99% of the focus is not on female body parts, and free of ludicrous fetish tropes like 'prostitute refused to charge because muh dick is MAGIX!'

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Of course it's hypocrisy to lay blame at the feet of GoT and not at the feet of Outlander, especially when its worse in Outlander, it's just that there its the man.

I liked that Chris Hemsworth scene btw, he looked awesome. I'm sure no one whines about women getting some great eye candy in a film like that. It's not as if that is what Thor is about and as if the film has nothing else going for it. Just like GoT has eye candy for women but a lot else going for it in terms of story and character.

By the way, never noticed that show Pod or show Tommen are supposed to be studs. They look normal to me.

I think the comparison for Thor would be something like Megan Fox in Transformers. The scenes of her wiping herself off or glistening in the sun, boobs out, caused a bit of an outcry as blatent sexism ( it was hardly tasteful).. and yet something like Thor with his kit off is 'a nice bit of eye candy for women'. There is a bit of a mixed message there. 

And I disagree with Crixus here.  There might be historical reasons for differences in sexist attitudes, but why is one type of sexism celebrated or condoned ( Outlander) but another is villified and treated with disdain (Game of Thrones). I'm not even going to debate whether Game of Thrones does slightly exploitative things or has a male centric viewpoint, because occasionally it does ( it also has plenty of exploitative male nudity too, go watch that first episode and see Robb, Jon and Theon with their tops off for little to no reason except to excite the ladies). But even if it did, why is that a so disgusting, if similar sexism on Outlander is absolutely fine. Nobody answers that question, they just attack Game of Thrones even more. 

My problem is the hypocrisy.

 

2 hours ago, Crixus said:

Wasn't Pod's magical dick magical enough for seasoned prostitutes to eschew payment (gigantic eye roll because it isn't as though that's the most tired cheesy trope ever)? Ditto for Tyrion in Braavos... I don't think you can get any more straight-up male wish fulfilment than that. Let's not pretend GoT is uniformly highbrow; it has its fair share of male gratification via lowest common denominator. 

I also find it disingenuous to compare female and male sexism. Sure, let's do that. Doesn't matter that sexism directed at women is historically prevalent, institutionalised, and systemic. It's only in the last 50 years or so that women have been able to express their sexuality and personality (even there, shit like 'slut!!' comes up; of course, a sexually promiscuous man is 'a stud': HYPOCRISY ALERT!).   

Whereas men have been using and victimising women for, oh, I don't know... thousands of years? And yet, some are tripping over themselves to indignantly and self righteously equate the two. Talk about an absence of context. 

It's also pretty fucking amusing to see people decry Outlander as porn. It's 1 show out of a gazillion with equal opportunity nudity: Claire is naked as often as Jamie is, a fact some fail to notice, weirdly enough. And that equal opportunity is somehow porn? 

All right then.

Oh, and I am not a Gabaldon fan. I read the first 2 books and gave the series up. I also agree with a few negative observations about the book and show. Doesn't change the fact that it's a fucking breath of fresh air to watch something where 99% of the focus is not on female body parts, and free of ludicrous fetish tropes like 'prostitute refused to charge because muh dick is MAGIX!'

 

[Crixus]

They do and have done, repeatedly. I remember doing so myself. Also remember asking (you, I think) whether you'd prefer all nudity be banned from entertainment? If not, why do you object to equal opportunity nudity? What exactly is your position here? Are you against all depictions of sex/nudity in entertainment? If yes, fair enough. You can choose to find GoT and Outlander and a hundred other shows/films etc. equally disgusting simply for the fact that they all focus on nakedness/sex.

If no, then why would you be against nudity focusing not just on women (which has been 100% the case throughout entertainment until very recently with shows like Spartacus and Outlander), but on both women and men? It's almost as if a few rare instances (rare and few compared to the overwhelming predominance of female nudity in all entertainment, old and current, from TV to films to video games) of male nudity are too much to handle.

Last, the case for sexism/exploitation in GoT is founded on the many, many instances of women being raped and brutalised WITHOUT focusing on their reaction/trauma after AND the fact that nearly all the sex shown is either paid for or borderline/flat out non consensual. We can probably count loving, consensual sex on a hand: Dany/Drogo, Robb/Talisa, perhaps Tyrion/Shae (though here too, transactional).

In Outlander, rape is depicted thoughtfully in that, the IMPACT of that rape is also dwelt upon. Rather different from, say, Cersei getting forced by Jaime and conveniently dismissing it without us seeing an instant of, I don't know, her reaction to it. 

Second, Outlander focuses on an intimate, sensual relationship between 2 consenting adults. So yeah, there is sex. There's also banter, and conversation, and arguing and a shitload of other stuff that the couple go through, along with the sex (please compare this to a single case of such relationship development in GoT, barring maybe DanyDrogo).

And lastly, the notion that consenting, loving sex and attraction and the depiction thereof is somehow a 'female only' thing is sad and baffling to me, as if implying males are so shallow that they cringe from emotion because it's 'girly' or something.

 

Please do correct me if I've misunderstood you in any manner.

Also, once again no one comments on the fact that Claire is as naked as often as Jamie. So by definition the show can't be labelled 'exploiting male nudity' ,because it has both.

 

 

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Yeah I think you are mis interpreting what I am trying to say. So I'll just label out my problems.

- I have zero problem with Nudity on tv, I have no problem with any show being pornographic or showing naked people or having sex. I think its a perfectly normal part of life and we should all be doing more of it!

- My problem is that Outlander is hailed as 'The Feminist Game of Thrones http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/watch-outlander#.hbpO0ojPxV, and while in some ways it should be celebrated for its feminist themes, at the same time it shows men as either glistening sex objects or brutal violent ignorant rapists. It makes many of the same mistakes that Game of Thrones makes, but because its "feminist" and its men who look bad, then its a good thing. One shouldn't be villified and one glorified simply because its women or men who are the object of desire.

- If you are going to paint GoT as sexist and exploitative then you have to do the same when Outlander does it. Yes Claire gets naked, but Jamie has his top off in a lot of scenes,  hes an unrealisticly handsome character falling in love with Claire immediately for no real reason. Its the exact same wish fulfillment fantasy you were berating about Pod and the prostitutes (which by the way was just a humourous scene). 

- The argument that GoT doesn't do rape properly or doesn't deal with sex in the same way, is kind of moot, because Outlander is a romance and sex is one of its main focusses. It has the time and space to explore those things in depth, so of course it will do it better. Outlanders depictions of historical politics is shallow and bland.. but I don't really think it was aiming for that so I don't criticise it. 

- The reason I stopped watching Outlander was due to the wife beating scenes, as it was just another scene of a man being shown to be a backwards brute, who needs educating on modern feminist culture by a superior woman. It was just one of many scenes where men were belittled and poorly depicted. I realised at that point that the show wasn't for me, and I felt insulted by it. The sex itself didn't bother me, neither does the nudity. I only bring it up because Outlander is used on this board as a superior alternative to GoT, and I find that a little hypocritical.

[Humble AK]

7 hours ago, Crixus said:

They do and have done, repeatedly. I remember doing so myself. Also remember asking (you, I think) whether you'd prefer all nudity be banned from entertainment? If not, why do you object to equal opportunity nudity? What exactly is your position here? Are you against all depictions of sex/nudity in entertainment? If yes, fair enough. You can choose to find GoT and Outlander and a hundred other shows/films etc. equally disgusting simply for the fact that they all focus on nakedness/sex.

If no, then why would you be against nudity focusing not just on women (which has been 100% the case throughout entertainment until very recently with shows like Spartacus and Outlander), but on both women and men? It's almost as if a few rare instances (rare and few compared to the overwhelming predominance of female nudity in all entertainment, old and current, from TV to films to video games) of male nudity are too much to handle.

Yeah, like Channel said, there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what's being argued here. I would like to point out that just a few posts ago I explicitly said that I think it's great people like Outlander and I hope it continues on for many seasons. I have also repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with porn. I haven't seen any other posts that have denounced pornography as bad or said that Outlander's use of sex is offensive.

Which is why it's so puzzling that people keep trying to portray the argument as such. There's nothing wrong with Outlander being porn for women. I don't care if there are a hundred shows designed to arouse a female audience. No one says it's wrong, and no one says it should be done away with. I have stated that I find Outllander's particular brand of porn as boring, but that's not the same as saying that I find it personally offensive or whatever.

The disagreement comes in the premise, which we are arguing against, that Outlander utilizes sex in a less exploitative manner than Game of Thrones, and that Game of Thrones is pornographic and therefore bad and Outlander is deep and feminist and therefore good.

Another disagreement is what constitutes pornography. A lot of people who are arguing that Game of Thrones is pornography and Outlander is not pornography, do so operating under this impression: that Outlander's sex, while explicit, is about the emotions of the relationship, while Game of Thrones' use of sex is usually devoid of emotion and therefore is just about the sex.

Now, I'm about to repeat what has already been said many, many times, but perhaps this round people will understand what is being argued.

1) Outlander does not utilize sex in a less exploitative manner than Game of Thrones. Exploitative sex is understood as the use of sex for prurient purposes. Outlander's sex is designed explicitly to arouse and, in every case, that is the entire purpose of the sex (see point 3 for more details). Game of Throne's sex is designed to arouse, but also often has idea that the use of sex explores in addition to the titillation. Usually this idea comes in the form of power dynamics, and so manifests itself as rape. In Outlander, rape has been regularly utilized so the female protagonist can be rescued by the powerful female fantasy of a male, and thus further his value, and the value of external validation that is achieved by this male being loving and devoted to the female protagonist - that is to say, it's not an idea, it's an enhancement of the female sexual fantasy.

2) What constitutes pornography. Naturally there will be disagreement on what pornography is, and everyone has their own definition. I've been using the definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It seems the people I've been debating against have been using the definition of Outlander isn't pornography and Game of Thrones is pornography (without any justification for this foundation), and are working from there. I, and others, have argued that naked people thrusting against each is a simplistic a fallacious impression of what pornography is. That is the direct and obvious definition, and it works for most men, but that's not what generally works for females (and don't even try to dispute this - of course there's a minority audience of females who appreciate this kind of sex, but just looking at consumer behavior of males versus females indicates how unpopular that kind of pornography is to women. Women prefer the portrayal of sex through emotional validation, which Outlander provides).

3) The final dispute is that Game of Thrones' use of sex is devoid of emotion and therefore bad, and Outlander's sex is emotional and therefore feminist and therefore good and not pornography. As I've said repeatedly, emotion does not dictate the value of sex on screen, and it certainly doesn't make it less pornographic. In fact, as has been demonstrated by the popularity of harlequin romance novels, for the female audience, that's specifically how arousal is achieved. You can't just have naked bodies thrusting against each other in a vacuum, like with the pornography for males. You need to have emotion, and a protagonist in which the female audience can project themselves as, so they can identify with the sense that they are more special than other women, and this total heartthrob confirms it by being totally and utterly in love with them. And it can't be a typical romance, it has to be a fantasy romance, which you see in Outlander. Jamie is in no way a real male character, he's an idealized caricature, in body and personality. Just like having women with perfect tits who will immediately commence to thrusting is the male fantasy situation, Jamie is the female fantasy situation - he's an objectification of males, whose existence is to validate the female protagonist whom the female audience may project themselves as.

The emotional 'development' that occurs (and is further 'developed' through the sex scenes) is the fantasy designed for the arousal of the female audience, and by the definition of Merriam-Webster, if the entire purpose of something is for arousal, it's pornography.

And a final bit for conclusion. I think that people hasten to defend something that clearly has the titillation factor as not pornography because porn is generally viewed as bad an without value. But the fact of the matter is that most shows do provide the titillation factor specifically to titillate and with no other value, because people like that. Even when something adds value in addition to titillation, the titillation factor is there deliberately. But because people are convinced that titillation for its own sake degrades 'art' somehow, they try to justify the titillation as incidental or not actually there because its presence is artistic. I think this is sophistry and wish people would just admit what's going on, without having to worry about their favorite show being considered less 'artistic.'

Quote

 

Last, the case for sexism/exploitation in GoT is founded on the many, many instances of women being raped and brutalised WITHOUT focusing on their reaction/trauma after AND the fact that nearly all the sex shown is either paid for or borderline/flat out non consensual. We can probably count loving, consensual sex on a hand: Dany/Drogo, Robb/Talisa, perhaps Tyrion/Shae (though here too, transactional).

In Outlander, rape is depicted thoughtfully in that, the IMPACT of that rape is also dwelt upon. Rather different from, say, Cersei getting forced by Jaime and conveniently dismissing it without us seeing an instant of, I don't know, her reaction to it. 

 

As I mentioned before, in Outlander rape is used as a fantasy ploy. Claire about to get raped by a bad guy, Jamie comes in all dashing and bulging biceps and rescues her, showing his eternal, worshipful devotion to her. This is a trope used to a hilarious degree in harlequin romance novels, and it's used often here.

But yeah, sometimes Outlander has a rape occur and focuses on the emotional repercussions of the act.

GoT did that too, and reportedly will continue, with the Sansa thing. It's spent several episodes on Sansa's emotional anguish due to her situation. It also has with Dany - for much of episode 2, it showed how deeply traumatic her situation was, until she learned the only way to take control. I still consider her Drogo relationship to be Stockholm Syndrome.

But the emotional consequences of rape aren't always explored in depth...and I say, so what? Plenty of violent scenes occur (people are burned, killed, mutilated, etc.) and GoT doesn't always spend a great deal of time exploring the emotional ramifications of that. Neither does Outlander. I suppose if you are one of those people who believes that rape is a special categorization of violence that deserves its own treatment then it matters (you know, as this act, horrifying above all others, that can only be spoken in whispers and the highest sensitivity, and must have the deepest concern for the victims, while obsessively vilifying the perpetrators). That's fine, but that's not how I regard it. I regard it as just another form of violence in the medium of entertainment, and people are free to treat it with reverence or as sensationally as any other form of violence is treated in entertainment. Makes no difference to me.

[Elaena Targaryen]

So... has anyone else watched the first episode yet?

[Crixus]

@Elaena Targaryen: is it out? 

 

 

 

 

[Crixus]

12 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yeah I think you are mis interpreting what I am trying to say. So I'll just label out my problems.

- I have zero problem with Nudity on tv, I have no problem with any show being pornographic or showing naked people or having sex. I think its a perfectly normal part of life and we should all be doing more of it!

- My problem is that Outlander is hailed as 'The Feminist Game of Thrones http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/watch-outlander#.hbpO0ojPxV, and while in some ways it should be celebrated for its feminist themes, at the same time it shows men as either glistening sex objects or brutal violent ignorant rapists. It makes many of the same mistakes that Game of Thrones makes, but because its "feminist" and its men who look bad, then its a good thing. One shouldn't be villified and one glorified simply because its women or men who are the object of desire.

Shows all men as brutal etc.? Disagree. Jamie, Frank Randall, Ian (Jamie's brother in law), Colum Mackenzie: none of these are depicted as brutal rapists. Some men are... like in real life. Second, are you honestly telling me GoT doesn't do exactly the same? Really??? If so, I have no words left. 

- If you are going to paint GoT as sexist and exploitative then you have to do the same when Outlander does it. Yes Claire gets naked, but Jamie has his top off in a lot of scenes,  hes an unrealisticly handsome character falling in love with Claire immediately for no real reason. Its the exact same wish fulfillment fantasy you were berating about Pod and the prostitutes (which by the way was just a humourous scene). 

Once again, it seems that according to you, showing men naked along with women is sexist to men. First, as I have already pointed out at length, equating male and female sexism is disingenuous. It follows that the depictions of the 2 will be approached the same way. I don't know how I can make this simpler. Further, if Outlander were showing a naked Jamie and a fully clothed Claire (like MOST of the sex scenes in GoT), you could argue the case of sexism against men. But when both strip, you can't. It's inaccurate.

- The argument that GoT doesn't do rape properly or doesn't deal with sex in the same way, is kind of moot, because Outlander is a romance and sex is one of its main focusses. It has the time and space to explore those things in depth, so of course it will do it better. Outlanders depictions of historical politics is shallow and bland.. but I don't really think it was aiming for that so I don't criticise it. \

I'll give you this: Outlander is a romance so it focuses a lot more on relationships. On the other hand, GoT adds rape where there isn't any (Sansa, Craster's keep with Karl Tanner and so on). I have no problem with depiction of rape; I do have a problem with overusing it as a lazy device and discarding it immediately after because the SHOCK factor is over. 

- The reason I stopped watching Outlander was due to the wife beating scenes, as it was just another scene of a man being shown to be a backwards brute, who needs educating on modern feminist culture by a superior woman. It was just one of many scenes where men were belittled and poorly depicted. I realised at that point that the show wasn't for me, and I felt insulted by it. The sex itself didn't bother me, neither does the nudity. I only bring it up because Outlander is used on this board as a superior alternative to GoT, and I find that a little hypocritical.

Claire is modern by those standards: that's kinda the entire premise of the story. She is more educated, advanced, progressive; this is a key theme of the story, in fact. So I'm surprised you'd object to her being depicted as such. No point for the entire time travel aspect otherwise. She's different, she sticks out, and she makes those around her look more primitive because in fact, they are: 2 centuries more primitive. I don't see the issue here. If wife beating is a bridge too far for you, I get it. Though once again, GoT has plenty of instances of men roughing women up... "it's set in medieval times" after all. Except it isn't, whereas Outlander actually is set in a specific actual period of history. Yet it seems GoT can rape, torture, flay and burn females with impunity, but a scene with Jamie spanking Claire is unconscionable. 

OK. 

 

[Elaena Targaryen]

23 minutes ago, Crixus said:

@Elaena Targaryen: is it out? 

Yea it's on demand, I really liked it.

[Crixus]

6 hours ago, Humble AK said:

Yeah, like Channel said, there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what's being argued here. I would like to point out that just a few posts ago I explicitly said that I think it's great people like Outlander and I hope it continues on for many seasons. I have also repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with porn. I haven't seen any other posts that have denounced pornography as bad or said that Outlander's use of sex is offensive.

Which is why it's so puzzling that people keep trying to portray the argument as such. There's nothing wrong with Outlander being porn for women. I don't care if there are a hundred shows designed to arouse a female audience. No one says it's wrong, and no one says it should be done away with. I have stated that I find Outllander's particular brand of porn as boring, but that's not the same as saying that I find it personally offensive or whatever.

Porn? I subscribe to the universally accepted definition of porn, not hyperbole. That's in the same category for me as shit like 'food porn' and 'gore porn': an overblown statement. Porn doesn't have themes and consistent storylines and developed characters (not any that I've seen). So, no, it's not porn anymore than GoT is boob/blood porn, in my opinion. 

6 hours ago, Humble AK said:

The disagreement comes in the premise, which we are arguing against, that Outlander utilizes sex in a less exploitative manner than Game of Thrones, and that Game of Thrones is pornographic and therefore bad and Outlander is deep and feminist and therefore good.

Another disagreement is what constitutes pornography. A lot of people who are arguing that Game of Thrones is pornography and Outlander is not pornography, do so operating under this impression: that Outlander's sex, while explicit, is about the emotions of the relationship, while Game of Thrones' use of sex is usually devoid of emotion and therefore is just about the sex.

Now, I'm about to repeat what has already been said many, many times, but perhaps this round people will understand what is being argued.

1) Outlander does not utilize sex in a less exploitative manner than Game of Thrones. Exploitative sex is understood as the use of sex for prurient purposes. Outlander's sex is designed explicitly to arouse and, in every case, that is the entire purpose of the sex (see point 3 for more details). Game of Throne's sex is designed to arouse, but also often has idea that the use of sex explores in addition to the titillation. Usually this idea comes in the form of power dynamics, and so manifests itself as rape. In Outlander, rape has been regularly utilized so the female protagonist can be rescued by the powerful female fantasy of a male, and thus further his value, and the value of external validation that is achieved by this male being loving and devoted to the female protagonist - that is to say, it's not an idea, it's an enhancement of the female sexual fantasy.

Nope. I don't agree with your definition of exploitative sex. To me, that's about the skewed focus on women. As has been done for centuries. So unless your take of the term is indisputably correct, let's just agree to disagree. 

I also don't think either shows are porn (and I'm personally annoyed and fed up with this sort of inaccurate statement. It's as though people haven't watched actual porn). But, GoT mainly uses sex to demean women or show how COOL the male character is ala Tyrion and Pod (whores galore! Whores giving away sex for free to Pod and Tyrion! Women getting raped by the dozens, and moving on without pause. That is exploitative of WOMEN by definition. And since women have a very, very long history of being exploited sexually on screen, paper and in real life, equating that sad fact with EXPLOITATION OF MEN is, for the tenth time, a false equivalence and disingenuous to the extreme). Outlander is refreshing because it depicts sex from the perspective of male and female, and treats the woman like a person with desires. That's the difference. It doesn't simply rely on rape. But it seems like some people can't stomach any focus on women as people. 

Oh, and I disagree with GoT doing some sort of intellectual exploration of power dynamics. What rot! Rape has been used this way in a gazillion movies and shows, from horror and slasher films to thrillers to romance and beyond. Let's not pretend GoT is doing something ground breaking. They're simply doing what a lot of mainstream entertainment has done for decades. 

6 hours ago, Humble AK said:

2) What constitutes pornography. Naturally there will be disagreement on what pornography is, and everyone has their own definition. I've been using the definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It seems the people I've been debating against have been using the definition of Outlander isn't pornography and Game of Thrones is pornography (without any justification for this foundation), and are working from there. I, and others, have argued that naked people thrusting against each is a simplistic a fallacious impression of what pornography is. That is the direct and obvious definition, and it works for most men, but that's not what generally works for females (and don't even try to dispute this - of course there's a minority audience of females who appreciate this kind of sex, but just looking at consumer behavior of males versus females indicates how unpopular that kind of pornography is to women. Women prefer the portrayal of sex through emotional validation, which Outlander provides).

3) The final dispute is that Game of Thrones' use of sex is devoid of emotion and therefore bad, and Outlander's sex is emotional and therefore feminist and therefore good and not pornography. As I've said repeatedly, emotion does not dictate the value of sex on screen, and it certainly doesn't make it less pornographic. In fact, as has been demonstrated by the popularity of harlequin romance novels, for the female audience, that's specifically how arousal is achieved. You can't just have naked bodies thrusting against each other in a vacuum, like with the pornography for males. You need to have emotion, and a protagonist in which the female audience can project themselves as, so they can identify with the sense that they are more special than other women, and this total heartthrob confirms it by being totally and utterly in love with them. And it can't be a typical romance, it has to be a fantasy romance, which you see in Outlander. Jamie is in no way a real male character, he's an idealized caricature, in body and personality. Just like having women with perfect tits who will immediately commence to thrusting is the male fantasy situation, Jamie is the female fantasy situation - he's an objectification of males, whose existence is to validate the female protagonist whom the female audience may project themselves as.

The emotional 'development' that occurs (and is further 'developed' through the sex scenes) is the fantasy designed for the arousal of the female audience, and by the definition of Merriam-Webster, if the entire purpose of something is for arousal, it's pornography.

What??? Sex with emotion is porn for women? Rather than, say, a depiction of actual, well rounded mature relationships, the sort people look for in real life? I am honestly confused here. 

6 hours ago, Humble AK said:

And a final bit for conclusion. I think that people hasten to defend something that clearly has the titillation factor as not pornography because porn is generally viewed as bad an without value. But the fact of the matter is that most shows do provide the titillation factor specifically to titillate and with no other value, because people like that. Even when something adds value in addition to titillation, the titillation factor is there deliberately. But because people are convinced that titillation for its own sake degrades 'art' somehow, they try to justify the titillation as incidental or not actually there because its presence is artistic. I think this is sophistry and wish people would just admit what's going on, without having to worry about their favorite show being considered less 'artistic.'

As I mentioned before, in Outlander rape is used as a fantasy ploy. Claire about to get raped by a bad guy, Jamie comes in all dashing and bulging biceps and rescues her, showing his eternal, worshipful devotion to her. This is a trope used to a hilarious degree in harlequin romance novels, and it's used often here.

But yeah, sometimes Outlander has a rape occur and focuses on the emotional repercussions of the act.

GoT did that too, and reportedly will continue, with the Sansa thing. It's spent several episodes on Sansa's emotional anguish due to her situation. It also has with Dany - for much of episode 2, it showed how deeply traumatic her situation was, until she learned the only way to take control. I still consider her Drogo relationship to be Stockholm Syndrome.

But the emotional consequences of rape aren't always explored in depth...and I say, so what? Plenty of violent scenes occur (people are burned, killed, mutilated, etc.) and GoT doesn't always spend a great deal of time exploring the emotional ramifications of that. Neither does Outlander. I suppose if you are one of those people who believes that rape is a special categorization of violence that deserves its own treatment then it matters (you know, as this act, horrifying above all others, that can only be spoken in whispers and the highest sensitivity, and must have the deepest concern for the victims, while obsessively vilifying the perpetrators). That's fine, but that's not how I regard it. I regard it as just another form of violence in the medium of entertainment, and people are free to treat it with reverence or as sensationally as any other form of violence is treated in entertainment. Makes no difference to me.
 

Titillation is fine, nothing wrong with it. I never stated otherwise. 

Your last point about rape is, in my view as a woman, offensive and fucking ludicrous. Akin to me saying, 'I suppose you're one of those people who think rape is something funny that a victim should just walk off'. 

1. Rape is a real, common thing that women (primarily) go through a lot, all around the world. Stats show this, kindly look it up (1 in 6 American women, for instance). Not the same as getting beheaded or burnt alive or flayed by any means (barring recent examples from ISIS: still is NO comparison in terms of scale, volume, or frequency). Can you fathom therefore that it is ACTUALLY different from a lot of violence shown on screen, because it's something women may have experienced FAR MORE FREQUENTLY than, say, men experiencing castration? 

2. "That can only be spoken in whispers and the highest sensitivity, and must have the deepest concern for the victims, while obsessively vilifying the perpetrators": I find this statement ugly, to be honest. When did I say it should be spoken about in whispers? What complete rubbish!

But I'll bite. Are you saying we should treat rape cavalierly? Or not vilify rapists? Or laugh at the victims instead of showing concern? Can you honestly not see that rape is a real widespread crime inflicted on millions of women in the real world and should therefore be treated with a degree of maturity when portrayed on screen? Especially by a show claiming to be intelligent and mature and a step above trash? Because in my experience, rape is depicted as a 'sensational' thing in trash.  

3. Do you consume entertainment in a vacuum or without using your intellectual and emotional faculties? I don't. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 hours ago, Crixus said:

Shows all men as brutal etc.? Disagree. Jamie, Frank Randall, Ian (Jamie's brother in law), Colum Mackenzie: none of these are depicted as brutal rapists. Some men are... like in real life. Second, are you honestly telling me GoT doesn't do exactly the same? Really??? If so, I have no words left. 

They might not all be rapists, but they are all shown to have a backwards, dismissive and often violent reaction to women, and shown to be inferior and backwards to Claire, often because they don't conform to her culturally accepted norms of modern feminism. Most of the men on the show are shown in a negative light in some way, and need a woman who has a feminist streak to show them what they are doing wrong. 

Game of Thrones is different, it has a wide variety of characters, good men, bad men, good women, bad women, strong females, weak females. Its hard to compare to the two because GoT is a much bigger and broader show. 

 

Quote

Once again, it seems that according to you, showing men naked along with women is sexist to men. First, as I have already pointed out at length, equating male and female sexism is disingenuous. It follows that the depictions of the 2 will be approached the same way. I don't know how I can make this simpler. Further, if Outlander were showing a naked Jamie and a fully clothed Claire (like MOST of the sex scenes in GoT), you could argue the case of sexism against men. But when both strip, you can't. It's inaccurate.

Firstly, there are a number of scenes of a shirtless Jamie in Outlander where everyone else is clothed, its a common occurence on the show. If it were a woman with her breasts out some might suggest it was exploitative. You are suggesting that because its a man and because of 'history' then its not possible that its exploitative. So the scene in GoT where Daario is naked and Dany is clothed, that is totally ok, but one in which the situations would be reversed is explotative? 

 

Quote

I'll give you this: Outlander is a romance so it focuses a lot more on relationships. On the other hand, GoT adds rape where there isn't any (Sansa, Craster's keep with Karl Tanner and so on). I have no problem with depiction of rape; I do have a problem with overusing it as a lazy device and discarding it immediately after because the SHOCK factor is over. 

I dont wanna talk too much about GoT in this thread, but actually much of the occurences of rape are NOT added for shock value, often are quite the natural result of the situation. Sansa was moved to Winterfell and married Ramsey. Whatever you have to say about that change, it would be very unlikely that she would leave that situation unscathed. Jeyne Poole came in for much worse in the books, and its not even made clear that Sansa doesn't experience something equally traumatic in the upcoming books. Other scenes, such as Jamie and Cercei have been misattributed as rape, when the makers have explained that it wasn't but was directed in a way in which people could say it was, and have admitted the error. Crastors keep, well a bunch of muderous thugs in a room full of women, men who've not been allowed near women for years.. what else would happen. They could of course have killed the women? Would that have been better or worse?

 

Quote

Claire is modern by those standards: that's kinda the entire premise of the story. She is more educated, advanced, progressive; this is a key theme of the story, in fact. So I'm surprised you'd object to her being depicted as such. No point for the entire time travel aspect otherwise. She's different, she sticks out, and she makes those around her look more primitive because in fact, they are: 2 centuries more primitive. I don't see the issue here. If wife beating is a bridge too far for you, I get it. Though once again, GoT has plenty of instances of men roughing women up... "it's set in medieval times" after all. Except it isn't, whereas Outlander actually is set in a specific actual period of history. Yet it seems GoT can rape, torture, flay and burn females with impunity, but a scene with Jamie spanking Claire is unconscionable. 

The problem isn't really with Claire, she is an ok character, its the general tone of the show. Its the way it delivers its message. Whether it wants to expose feminist values and promote them or not I'm not sure, but it does it in a way that attacks men, lays the finger of blame at them.

Someone is raped or almost raped in most episodes of the show, by a man. Claire is attacked a number of times on the show. Its almost as if to say that rape was somehow accepted or not a terrible crime in the past (it was, it always has been, especially in patriarchal societies) So when you add in the domestic violence issue, you basically have the educated good female character, having to avoid the dangers of a society of men who are not educated in her modern values, which means she is open to rape and beatings the entire time if she talks up or is pretty. Thats quite offensive and society even in those days wasn't like that at all. Its message, whether it means it or not is 'men are the problem here'. 

 

Quote

Nope. I don't agree with your definition of exploitative sex. To me, that's about the skewed focus on women. As has been done for centuries. So unless your take of the term is indisputably correct, let's just agree to disagree. 

Again sex is only explotative if its got a skewed focus on women or if its men doing the exploiting? Can you see the problem I am getting at here.

 

Quote

But, GoT mainly uses sex to demean women or show how COOL the male character is ala Tyrion and Pod (whores galore! Whores giving away sex for free to Pod and Tyrion! Women getting raped by the dozens, and moving on without pause. That is exploitative of WOMEN by definition.

I disagree with this. There was nothing demeaning in those scenes IMO. A woman who enjoys sex enough with a guy that she doesn't make him pay money for it? Btw, the Tyrion scene you have misunderstood it if you think she is giving it away for free, she isn't, she is willing to sleep with him and he still has to pay. 

Women getting raped in a scene isn't exploitation, it might well be a shortcut for showing how evil the men are, but how is it exploiting the women unless the scene is designed to titilate, and I challenge anyone to find it arousing. 

 

Quote

equating that sad fact with EXPLOITATION OF MEN is, for the tenth time, a false equivalence and disingenuous to the extreme)

And here my problem, its that 'women have been exploited' so its ok to do the same to men, or its impossible to be sexist to a man because they are men. Its a very dangerous path. 

 

Quote

Outlander is refreshing because it depicts sex from the perspective of male and female, and treats the woman like a person with desires. That's the difference. It doesn't simply rely on rape. But it seems like some people can't stomach any focus on women as people. 

And yet the show often relies on rape as a major plot point. It has huge amounts of rape scenes in it for such a short show. 

 

Quote

But it seems like some people can't stomach any focus on women as people. 

See I find that offensive as well. I have no problem with a good show from a female perspective. In that way Outlander is good, my problem is that it in turns depicts men in a one sided manner, often negatively. The reverse show would be cancelled. 
 

Quote

But I'll bite. Are you saying we should treat rape cavalierly? Or not vilify rapists? Or laugh at the victims instead of showing concern? Can you honestly not see that rape is a real widespread crime inflicted on millions of women in the real world and should therefore be treated with a degree of maturity when portrayed on screen? Especially by a show claiming to be intelligent and mature and a step above trash? Because in my experience, rape is depicted as a 'sensational' thing in trash.  

When in Game of Thrones was a rapist shown as a hero, when were we asked to laugh at the victims? There is a lot of mud thrown at GoT, but this is over the top.  

Outlander might deal with the consequences of rape, because that is its focus, but at the same time, the sheer amount of times rape occurs in the show is a way of using it as a plot device, to shock and hold peoples interest. That to me is just as bad a crime as anything GoT does. 

 

Quote

That's fine, but that's not how I regard it. I regard it as just another form of violence in the medium of entertainment, and people are free to treat it with reverence or as sensationally as any other form of violence is treated in entertainment. Makes no difference to me.

This brings up another genuine question. Why is rape a more abhorent form of violence than all the others? Is it worse than mutilation, murder, torture? Those things happen in movies all the time, yet there is zero uproar. This is not me justifying it at all, but I do find it interesting that one type of violence is seemingly the worst of all, and should be treated different than all the others.

[Crixus]

Hilarious that you are defending Craster's keep as being necessary somehow: a made up story in the show, not from the books and even there, it wasn't enough to see random arseholes rape random women to understand 'THIS PLACE IS BAD!'. No, we had to see Karl Tanner drool over and threaten Meera. And you think 'that was needed because it's a bad world'?

I also like how you ignored my comparison of a FAKE MEDIEVAL BAD WORLD in GoT with an actual historical time and place in Outlander, and somehow you think the more rape the better in the former, but it is unforgiveable in the latter? WOW. I am 99% certain you're aware of the dissonance here. 

I think there's no point in carrying on here. I view stuff in context, not in a vacuum. I cannot personally equate sexism toward men with that toward women. Not because of history alone, but because of even modern society and culture and a fundamental underpinning of civilisation where women have been dominated, used, abused and raped AND STILL ARE BEING TREATED BADLY AROUND THE WORLD FAR MORE THAN "SEXISM TOWARDS MEN". The former is a huge, pervasive problem that impacts millions of ACTUAL WOMEN across the globe daily, and the latter is something that... happens sometimes in shows like Outlander and Spartacus. If you think that's the same, great! I don't. 

Also, if you think it convenient to dismiss context--which in my view is vital to any mature discussion--as 'because history', well, you have every right to do just that too. And I have every right to dismiss this sort of dismissive condescension directed toward women (their past and current status and how that can consequently shape their world-view) as ill-informed, patronising mansplaining. I guess we need men to tell us how to feel about rape and exploitation, right? 

29 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

This brings up another genuine question. Why is rape a more abhorent form of violence than all the others? Is it worse than mutilation, murder, torture? Those things happen in movies all the time, yet there is zero uproar. This is not me justifying it at all, but I do find it interesting that one type of violence is seemingly the worst of all, and should be treated different than all the others.

 

HAHAHA. Again, I clarified this. 1 out of 6 women in America get raped, just 1 stat. Feel free to look up rape stats around the world. RAPE IS COMMON AND PERVASIVE. Far more than 'mutilation and torture'. Women get raped daily around the world in significant numbers. Can you claim the same for mutilation and torture? Can you see why this may therefore be more 'sensitive'?

Oh, and shirtless men =/= shirtless women, because breasts. Kindly do some research on breasts being an erotic symbol in most cultures. Kindly also explain to me why, if they're the same, men are allowed to walk around shirtless in public and women aren't. The claims of 'Jamie was shirtless so why not Claire THATONETIME?' are fallacious, therefore. 

 

Last, if you're replying to or quoting my posts to another poster, kindly read the entire thing and then respond. Your comment claiming I said "GoT treats rapists like heroes/laugh at victims" is 100% wrong, because I didn't make that in reference to GoT, but as a general reply to a general statement made by that poster. 

[red snow]

It's interesting how I find myself not really agreeing with either side of this argument and that my personal take is some middle ground.

I do think both shows cater for the male/female gaze. I wouldn't say that GOT is purely wish fulfillment for males - there's far more obvious candidates for that. I do get the impression from the show at least that outlander is almost wish fulfillment from the writer's POV. I've probably said as much upstream that someone could probably write an interesting thesis on how such things differ from a male and female POV. Off the top of my head it seems both like bad things happening to the love interests but the response is different in that males have to go out and avenge the love interest while for females they care for the victim. I don't know if this is a general thing given outlander is my sample number of one.

I don't think there's much argument that both shows have lots of sex and violence because it sells though.

[Humble AK]

Quote

Porn? I subscribe to the universally accepted definition of porn, not hyperbole. That's in the same category for me as shit like 'food porn' and 'gore porn': an overblown statement. Porn doesn't have themes and consistent storylines and developed characters (not any that I've seen). So, no, it's not porn anymore than GoT is boob/blood porn, in my opinion. 

Clearly there's no universal definition of porn because there's constantly arguments about what porn is - between individuals, in court, in the media, etc. If you have the absolute standard, please by all means provide the formula, because I say it's interpretative.

Quote

So unless your take of the term is indisputably correct, let's just agree to disagree. 

I think that's precisely what we must do. You view porn as a strict naked people thrusting against each other definition, I view porn as content explicitly designed to arouse, with no other purpose. If we don't agree on this, then of course when we talk about porn and exploitative sex and objectification, we are using different interpretations of these words and so are talking past each other.

The reason I'm persistent in these conversations is that there is a tendency  for many people to use their interpretation as inviolable fact. I've previously acknowledged that all of this is an interpretation on my part, but when people denounce GoT for its exploitative sex and praise Outlander for its mature use of sex, they treat it as though the creators should heed their opinion because they seem to think they've made an objective observation - which it very much is not.

Quote

And since women have a very, very long history of being exploited sexually on screen, paper and in real life, equating that sad fact with EXPLOITATION OF MEN is, for the tenth time, a false equivalence and disingenuous to the extreme).

It's not a false equivalency if it's equivalent. I previously noted that a trend in correcting an imbalance of power that has been set for a long time (such as with gender dynamics) is to overcompensate and attempt to correct by participating in the same double standard, but oppositely directed. You can argue that it's okay to be sexist and hold to double standards against males because that's been the case against females for so long, and so turn about is fair play, but that's not going to stop me from recognizing that despite history, it's still a double standard. And it's not going to make me feel that it's the correct approach either.

Quote

What??? Sex with emotion is porn for women? Rather than, say, a depiction of actual, well rounded mature relationships, the sort people look for in real life? I am honestly confused here. 

I've said this about a hundred times, so here's one hundred one. The relationship in Outlander is not an actual, well rounded mature relationship. Jamie is an idealized sexual fantasy for women (an objectification of males). The sex is part of this fantasy relationship. It's designed solely to be titillating, not to be realistic or deep. I've called that pornography (content designed explicitly to arouse, and with no further purpose), based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You clearly disagree, as your definition of pornography is naked people thrusting against each other without the context of the fantasy situation that would titillate the female audience. In other words, your definition of porn is content that designed to arouse a male audience. Content designed to arouse a female audience you consider progressive entertainment.

Quote

Your last point about rape is, in my view as a woman, offensive and fucking ludicrous

In your view as an individual. I hope that you're not about to make the argument that only through anecdotal experience can one understand this viewpoint and so, by fiat, that viewpoint is the correct viewpoint.

Quote

1. Rape is a real, common thing that women (primarily) go through a lot, all around the world. Stats show this, kindly look it up (1 in 6 American women, for instance). Not the same as getting beheaded or burnt alive or flayed by any means (barring recent examples from ISIS: still is NO comparison in terms of scale, volume, or frequency). Can you fathom therefore that it is ACTUALLY different from a lot of violence shown on screen, because it's something women may have experienced FAR MORE FREQUENTLY than, say, men experiencing castration? 

Domestic violence, war violence, bullying, getting assaulted on the street...these are all common sources of violence with real emotional consequences. Rape is common, and all of these other forms of violence are common too. I'm not about to argue about the magic arbitrary ratio with respect to other forms of violence that would indicate that one form deserves special consideration over other forms. That's clearly not objective, regardless of how passionately you feel about the issue and how right you think you are.

All these forms of violence can result in a variety of trauma based on the individual's reaction to trauma. There's no scale that says that everyone must be more traumatized by this form of violence over another form of violence. Some people can walk off war violence. Some people can walk off sexual violence. It's uncommon for either, but there's no universal rule of human behavior that dictates that you must endure x amount of trauma from a given situation. Likewise, some people are traumatized severally from a street beating - their trauma is not somehow less real or painful than someone who is severely traumatized by war violence or sexual violence.

So there's no scale to measure that objective impact of any form of violence, regardless of how passionately you may feel about your specially abhorred brand of violence and believe that it's the absolute worst of all. So I'm not going to argue with you on this, either, because it will be circular since there's no objective quantification of these things.

Quote

2. "That can only be spoken in whispers and the highest sensitivity, and must have the deepest concern for the victims, while obsessively vilifying the perpetrators": I find this statement ugly, to be honest. When did I say it should be spoken about in whispers? What complete rubbish!

I don't think this applies everywhere, but certainly on this forum you have to tread with extreme care when discussing the issue of sexual violence. I've already gotten a warning point and banned for a very (as I saw it) inoffensive post regarding sexual violence, that if made regarding any other form of violence would have passed without comment. So my statement was primarily directed with the context of the rules of this forum. I'm a little wary even having this conversation now. Considering that I'm not speaking of rape in some hallowed tone of the sincerest respect for its place as the gravest of gravest sins in the universe, I'm probably at risk of getting banned again. I hope things aren't that ridiculously unjust here, because I've spoken politely and respectfully this whole time (remember, I can respect your viewpoint without agreeing with it). But such is the way of things on this board that it's probably a legitimate concern.

Quote

But I'll bite. Are you saying we should treat rape cavalierly? Or not vilify rapists? Or laugh at the victims instead of showing concern?

No, I don't think any perpetrator of a crime should be vilified. Rehabilitation, not condemnation, should always be the objective, precisely because I don't view things in a vacuum.

Quote

Can you honestly not see that rape is a real widespread crime inflicted on millions of women in the real world and should therefore be treated with a degree of maturity when portrayed on screen? Especially by a show claiming to be intelligent and mature and a step above trash? Because in my experience, rape is depicted as a 'sensational' thing in trash.

And you're welcome to that interpretation. Again, my regard for sexual violence is the same regard for all categories of violence, for the reasons I expressed above. You clearly differ in your opinion (not your perfect recognition of reality, but your opinion) on these matters. So I see war violence doesn't have to be treated with respect in the entertainment medium (it can even be comedic), hell, even genocide can be used in an exploitative fashion (love me some apocalyptic drama).

Now one can go one of two ways from here, with this consideration. One can say that all forms of violence should thus be treated with the gravest reverence, or you can say that entertainment doesn't indicate endorsement, and sometimes we can appreciate irreverency for any form of violence. I'm of the latter position.

red snow,

Quote

I don't think there's much argument that both shows have lots of sex and violence because it sells though.

I agree.

[Theda Baratheon]

OK. Just started watching it and almost finished season 1 already. i'm hooked. I absolutely LOVE it.

[Zorral]

Because a bunch of shallow so-called television critics and media blathers can't think of any other comparison to Outlander than Got isn't the fault of Outlander, or the people who like the series. It's the fault of the reader for automatically buying into the shallow bs that media content people pour out all day and every day.

In many ways the faux concern trolling about female porn and gaze and all the rest sounds a lot like unacknowledged anxiety of certain sorts of straight males, that the masculine nudity isn't for the benefit of women or of Claire (It's really for Claire) -- but for the homo erotic male gaze. 

Gads, Outlander is gorgeous!  The most beautiful show on television, hands down, in everything from nature to costumes to costumes to dinner ware.

We could see Outlander's influence everywhere here this winter, in all the long, wide plaid shawls and mufflers, and in the various sorts of sweaters, the ladies took to wearing when it got cold enough. It's so cold again today that the plaids are again out in force.  Snow tomorrow, again . . . .

 

 

 

[Mladen]

Viewer discretion is advised... There is no cattle in S02E01

It was really nice episode... I have no idea whether 1948 Jack is better man than most of us are, or at least me, or whether it was stretching the logic, but it was interesting to see him and how he reacted...

Spoiler

Also, did I count THREE rings? Two on hands and one she found buried? Is it Jaime's? 

Liked the beginning better than the end, but it was a nice episode and it was great seeing them back...

[Jack Bauer 24]

Wait...didn't the Season 1 finale end with Claire and Jaime sailing for France?