For the record, I've read the objectionable scene in Outlander and it definitely crossed the line - or in other words, is black and white enough for a conviction under my jurisdiction's criminal code - so yeah, I'm not reading that novel. It's one thing when evil or morally ambiguous characters commit sexual violence: it's another entirely when romantic heroes do. What can I say, I find consent sexy ;-)
Now I'm REALLY wondering what the hell scene I'm forgetting. Which scene is this exactly? And did they show it in the tv series? ETA:...Ohhhh...had to go searching through the book...are you thinking of the first encounter after that scene I referenced in my first post? If so, yeah...I guess that could be upsetting to some. The way they handled it in the tv series was I think slightly less 'mixed signals' than in the book, but I can't really remember.
The scene I'm talking about has not been included in the series (at least up to the point I've watched). It's not ''mixed signals'', unless ''no'' is a mixed signal! Admittedly I've read it as an extract online, not in the book itself, soooo maybe on the page before that scene they agree that no means yes and pick a safe word to ensure no one is harmed?
Worth reading the low-star reviews on Goodreads if you're honestly curious - many of them quote specific scenes that are VERY problematic from a feminist (or y'know, basic human rights!) viewpoint. I'm surprised the book hasn't been edited ever so slightly to eliminate this issue. Sounds like it'd be fantastic... if only the hero wasn't a rapist.
Ok, got it, I skimmed the one-star Goodreads. Most direct quotes seem to refer to the scene (and aftermath scene) I described above. So I haven't completely lost my marbles, phew. A few others seemed to take offense at a different scene that I personally would not have ever considered problematic (having had several similar real-life encounters and found them to be sexy fun and never considered myself as 'forced' but only enjoyably 'persuaded'), but in today's explicit 'no means no' norms, yeah...I can kind of squint and see it.
But re: the main upsetting sequence where
Jamie beats Claire with a belt, and a few eps later they have very rough and intense make-up sex
? Those scenes on the tv show were very close to the book versions. And I can totally understand why it put some readers and viewers off. For example, I knew my DH would really love a lot of the series' elements, but I also knew that he would FLIP OUT over the above-described scenes and the sexual violence at the end of the book. So, he didn't read the books. Instead, we watched the first half of the first season of the TV series, then he bailed and I described the rest of the plot. Now he's jumping back in as a viewer of Season 2 (not nearly as much sexual violence later in the series).
This convo reminds me how interesting it is to consider changing norms in historical novels. During and prior to the 1990s, when Gabaldon's first book came out, historical romances regularly featured and romanticized rape and sexual assault of all kinds. I didn't read a lot of those novels, but when I did I didn't really think much about it. I don't think most readers did. At the time, Gabaldon's book was, if not exactly feminist, certainly more progressive than an avalanche of novels from the 70s and 80s.
Historical novels are also tricky because rape was super common in some eras and some settings. So if you want to avoid reading it, then you need to seek out novels that are somewhat unrealistic and white-wash that aspect of life mostly out, or those with settings where it would have been less common. Jane Austen, for example. Or SK Penman.
Or (NEW REC!!!) Edith Wharton. I rarely read straight up romance novels anymore, but it does seem like those rape tropes are uncommon now, even in novels with settings where they would realistically be incredibly common. Which is fine. I'm all for non violent escapist fantasy! (I also don't like to contemplate the tooth rot and body odor endemic in Ye Olden Days when I'm reading historical fiction LOL).
Not to derail the thread completely, but I am just rereading a well regarded literary fiction novel from the 80s,
The Witches of Eastwick. At the time, it was considered to be a fairly feminist book, and I remembered it that way from when I originally read it, when I was about 17. But it is weirdly dated and offensive now, in a whole bunch of ways that never struck me then. Actually, a lot of media from the 1980s seems WAY more sexist, racist, and homophobic in retrospect, and I think, why didn't we all notice this back then? But of course, the 80s were LESS sexist, racist, and homophobic than the 70s, which were less so than the 60s, and so on.
Fascinating how quickly norms change.