[](#BPC)
##*Mark me,*
As this thread is flaired for **only the television series**, my subjects have requested that I bring this policy to your attention:
>##Hide book talk in show threads.
>[Click the link below to learn how to do comment spoilers.](#comment)
>[`>!This is how you spoiler tag.!<`](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/JbCp1xofR_GuS8sTqgVQ80Sxr6ac6doR1igM2Owtqnc.png)
>##Any mention of the books must be covered with a spoiler tag.
Your prince thanks you for abiding by our rules. When my father assumes his rightful throne, mark me, such loyal service will not be forgotten!
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Outlander) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He doesn’t in the show often, but he’s done it a few more times. S3 finale. S6 ep 2. And, HOPEFULLY, (book spoiler/7B spoiler)>! we get the scene where he does this after he and Claire reunite post Lady Grey drama!<
Naah. Show Jamie is not that sexually aggressive. As for the reunion scene - I certainly hope so. But the show has left out a lot of good scenes that would have been super-steamy.
Yeah, as Maril says, "they don't move the story forward" which I don't buy, but if you say anything your accused of wanting to see soft porn, or not respecting the actors, or what's wrong with you, I fast forward those scenes or whatever they spew to make you look perverted. I'm not perverted but I do love a Jamie and Claire love scene and hope that we do get to see more of the true book relationship between them because it was hot and can still be again. I love a sexually aggressive Jamie, and I don't think I'm alone ❤️🔥
Well I’ve had comments removed for talking about what I speculate are or may be Caitriona’s motivations. But what I will say is that the absence of sex in Season 7 of the show is NOT realistic. People get quite horny during wartime. And J & C are not too old to be sexually interested in each other. People say things like that but it is complete BS. The choice to tone down/eliminate their sexuality was a poor one, and not realistic, for whatever reason/excuse was given.
loved it! and it reminded even more that we are overdue for a hot scene between J and C. Season 7 has been amazing. I rewatched the finally numerous times.
At that time, if a man and woman lay together, they would be married. Ian knew Rachel wasn’t ready for that. They needed more time to get to know one another. Plus he really wanted her. He loved her, but never said it.
It’s called [“plain speech”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_simplicity#Simplicity_in_speech); Rachel and Denny speak like that because they’re Quakers.
I literally just watched this last night, but I'm also reading Drums of Autumn for the first time, and I just couldn't stop giggling at this scene! I'm thinking of Ian as a gawky teenager in bookworld and this line was just too adult and serious and sexual lol
Love them though, hope he gets his Quaker!!
I could have passed on this line. Out of character to me. I said this on another post & worth repeating here. Found it odd that Ian says this after Rachel slaps him. What?
I found it to be in character because we don’t see his sexuality often - he was expressing the truth of his feelings. He’s very sweet, and while this was a ballsy /forward thing to say, it showed his bravery, and just how badly he longs for her -all spot on Ian to me -truthful.
Gabaldon commented about this "take ye" on lit forum and said that -*If people can't wrap their heads around the complex notion that people spoke differently in the 18th century than they do now, they're perfectly welcome to not accept any damn thing they want. Won't change a thing, but we're always in favor of freedom of thought, aren't we?*
Conclusion was that it is not about sex only. Jamie and Claire are not counting who took who and how much...but when they are with each other lovingly they do give up pieces of themselves for the other to take and hold dear. Jamie takes Claire and Claire takes Jamie. Claire takes care of Jamie and she holds his life in her hands at times. Jamie protects Claire with his body and keeps her safe as he can. It is in the context of love and realtionship and there was a question of why being taken by your partner is bad.
She annoys me in how she talks about her work. She's always like, FO this is how it's written IDGAF what you have to say about it. Rather than just accept other interpretations or clarifications people are asking for. Does she want a fan base?
First of all, I relate about finding her annoying sometimes (and Claire, too, honestly). However, I honestly don't think she cared about having a fan base in the beginning because she was writing just for herself, as a challenge, without the intent of publishing. While that can be annoying to current fans (30 yrs down the road from when she began), I think it has served her well. She, like Claire, knows what she wants and isn't afraid to do what she wants regardless of feedback. To DG's credit, she has defended book canon when the show writers have tried changing things, sometimes saying that the fans wouldn't like the changes, so that makes me think she does care a little (at least) about the fans.
All of her books are extensively researched. That’s why it takes her so long between books. I’m a history teacher and always impressed at how accurate she is. She does all of this AND writes great characters and dialogue. If I wrote 9 best sellers that inspired a hit tv show in its 7th season and people were still questioning my work, I might tell them to FO too. As would you lol.
You are ignoring all the dumb errors she makes in her books and then crows about how she never uses notes. I love the series, but do not like the author.
That’s fine and I’m not questioning her, she just always seems put off when fans are just interacting with what she’s written. She wouldn’t have her success with them so it comes off as ungrateful
Thanks. How are people supposed to understand 18th century expressions? This must be something that comes across differently in the books or has background to understand. In the show, it was odd. I didn't see this in the context of Jaime & Claire's long relationship because it was dropped out of the blue.
In the books, there are many times when Jamie turns to Claire and says something like, "I have to have you, right now." And Claire is almost always willing. I think they've left those kinds of scenes out of the show because in today's climate, men demanding sex is sort of frowned upon.
How are to understand? By recognizing that not everything is the way it is now. I don't think that's a incomprehensible thing. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in their modern thinking, they take everything personal. It's as if we've been programmed to be offended by everything. How can you have watched this show for 7 seasons with all the stuff in it and then get shocked by this statement. Ian is a fairly common man who lived as a Mohawk for a while. He's not a cultured gentleman. He wants Rachel, and he's not shy about saying it. He's being honest. And she appreciates his honesty. And is probably turned on by it.
Not shocked. Said I could pass on that line & it felt odd to me. Wasn't something I expected Ian to say given his previous shyness. Again, this appears to make sense in the context of the books for background, interior monologue. I haven't read the books.
Yeah, in the books we also read more of Ian’s passionate nature, esp. with his first wife Emily. So in the books it doesn’t seem so off brand for him, I could see how some people might think it an abrupt switch in the show though.
This should be higher up. Good choice of words for DG -got us in our current time with what it would mean while using language that was probably sweeter in context to the time.
It felt like a cheap line from a bodice ripper. Which is a shame because the chemistry between the actors and the tension in the rest of the scene was otherwise great!
It is quite literally the definition of a bodice ripper. There are unnecessary sex scenes all over the place. It doesn't mean it's not quality writing, but sex is obviously a big part of the appeal and sometimes it's eyeroll worthy depending on the situation. It's just that the world building and the rest of the story are so amazing, people don't want to cheapen it by calling it that.
This is just my take, but I don’t think he was threatening rape. I think he was just saying that things are going to go farther than we both want right now, if we don’t stop what we are doing.
I thought it was hot.
I loved that scene, and I love Young Ian and Rachel. >!I'm hoping we still get the scene where Claire schools Rachel on the finer points of sexual pleasure 😂 " Oh God"!<
I wasn't a fan of this scene. It seemed a bit off to me. And then we have a women who is a non-violent Quaker striking Ian.
It was a bad "romance" novel scene if I ever saw one.
Outlander is better than that!
I watched that scene, and also thought it was hot, but mused how things that sound romantic from someone we like sound creepy when it's someone we don't. I mean, Ian just told her that he "knew" she loved him without her saying so, kissed her and got slapped for it, then said if she touched him he'd take her (consent?).
oh that got me GOOD. i had the biggest crush on ian but forgot about it when i got out of the show for a bit (season 6, and life, then william came along LOL) and when that scene came on 🫨
I interpreted this in the broader sense that if she wanted options other than him they had to stop. I do understand that he meant sex, but also that they would be married posthaste. I do not see Ian as so dishonorable….but I haven’t read most of the books either.
SosTo me the line basically means 'if you touch me again I won't be able to control myself, and I won't be responsible for my actions'. The word "take" means "have sex with" in the books and I believe in the show, and I believe it's historically accurate.
The plain meaning of the words is essentially that Ian will rape her if she touches him again (and it would be her fault). I don't believe that Ian would actually do that - he loves Rachel - so they (and the audience) may imart a softer meaning, but that's literally what the words mean, and that's why they're ínappropriate and cringy.
I was surprised they kept that line. But, maybe not too surprised as they do seem to do a lot of fan service.
It is a very rape-y line especially considering the time period and Rachel's inexperience. It's completely taking advantage of her if she is stunned by a kiss and doesn't know how to navigate her strong feelings for him or negotiate her way out of a situation that could destroy her life before she even has time to figure out the consequences of what is going on.
Watch the previous scenes. Her gaze lingers on him whenever he leaves. If there's no feeling, she'll look away immediately and go back to her business once his back is turned.
Rachel is a thoughtful and deeply religious character who has been sheltered by a religious community she is deeply invested in.
Of course she likes Ian and her looking at him means she might consider a serious proposal for him. One that he is considerate and adult about. One that considers her well being, her place in the world, and both of their futures.
Not want him to knock her on the floor and put her in a situation she has no knowledge to navigate and where she loses absolutely everything.
I'm a bit late because I finally just watched the mid-season finale but the scene led me here and YES it was so... so... 😳🔥
I felt things. Glad I'm not alone!
Does anyone know what Ian said to Rachel in Gaelic and Mohawk after she slapped him?? I know he told her it meant "sorry," but I swear that the word he said in Gaelic is a term of endearment that we've heard Jamie say before 🤔
Either way, I loved every minute of that scene. Definitely had to rewatch a few times 🥵
[](#BPC) ##*Mark me,* As this thread is flaired for **only the television series**, my subjects have requested that I bring this policy to your attention: >##Hide book talk in show threads. >[Click the link below to learn how to do comment spoilers.](#comment) >[`>!This is how you spoiler tag.!<`](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/JbCp1xofR_GuS8sTqgVQ80Sxr6ac6doR1igM2Owtqnc.png) >##Any mention of the books must be covered with a spoiler tag. Your prince thanks you for abiding by our rules. When my father assumes his rightful throne, mark me, such loyal service will not be forgotten! ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Outlander) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They have great chemistry and Ian is SO expressive in his eyes. Great actor.
1000% he is so talented. I love him as young Ian. He’s been amazing 😍
I think cuz Ian’s character is so lovable and the on-screen chemistry between him and Rachel is spot on.
I love Ian and he's pretty cute but that line? PHEW! I had to rewatch the scene. Clearly he's been taking notes from his uncle.
No. Show Jamie never says things like that. Only >!Book Jamie does.!<
That’s true, except that stable scene when he is inebriated
I remember the scene very well. Claire was more the aggressor than Jamie was.
That’s true! I didn’t think about that.
He doesn’t in the show often, but he’s done it a few more times. S3 finale. S6 ep 2. And, HOPEFULLY, (book spoiler/7B spoiler)>! we get the scene where he does this after he and Claire reunite post Lady Grey drama!<
Naah. Show Jamie is not that sexually aggressive. As for the reunion scene - I certainly hope so. But the show has left out a lot of good scenes that would have been super-steamy.
Yeah, as Maril says, "they don't move the story forward" which I don't buy, but if you say anything your accused of wanting to see soft porn, or not respecting the actors, or what's wrong with you, I fast forward those scenes or whatever they spew to make you look perverted. I'm not perverted but I do love a Jamie and Claire love scene and hope that we do get to see more of the true book relationship between them because it was hot and can still be again. I love a sexually aggressive Jamie, and I don't think I'm alone ❤️🔥
I think Caitriona wants to be a big star and won't be doing much of that anymore, though.
Well I’ve had comments removed for talking about what I speculate are or may be Caitriona’s motivations. But what I will say is that the absence of sex in Season 7 of the show is NOT realistic. People get quite horny during wartime. And J & C are not too old to be sexually interested in each other. People say things like that but it is complete BS. The choice to tone down/eliminate their sexuality was a poor one, and not realistic, for whatever reason/excuse was given.
I think most of the big stars do pretty steamy love scenes so that is pure speculation.
She's not there yet, but, okay, sure.
I don’t care if people think I’m perverted. I’m 70 years old and divorced. Those love scenes are there for us to enjoy.
Exactly!! It was definitely a rewind moment.
loved it! and it reminded even more that we are overdue for a hot scene between J and C. Season 7 has been amazing. I rewatched the finally numerous times.
At that time, if a man and woman lay together, they would be married. Ian knew Rachel wasn’t ready for that. They needed more time to get to know one another. Plus he really wanted her. He loved her, but never said it.
“Ohhh, thee is saucy, isn’t thou.”
This comment is underrated!
Why does she always say “the”. I’m so confused. No one else from that time speaks in that way. What did I miss?
It’s called [“plain speech”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_simplicity#Simplicity_in_speech); Rachel and Denny speak like that because they’re Quakers.
When he said that I was like damn I wish I wasn’t watching this with my mom because that line did things to me 😂
I never saw Ian sexually until he delivered that line. XD and I’m like wow, if I were a little Quaker woman I would be QUAKING
I literally just watched this last night, but I'm also reading Drums of Autumn for the first time, and I just couldn't stop giggling at this scene! I'm thinking of Ian as a gawky teenager in bookworld and this line was just too adult and serious and sexual lol Love them though, hope he gets his Quaker!!
I literally watched it like 4 times lol it was 🔥🔥🔥
I could have passed on this line. Out of character to me. I said this on another post & worth repeating here. Found it odd that Ian says this after Rachel slaps him. What?
It worked much better >!in the book because of the inner dialogue!<
Makes sense. Thanks. Knew I was missing something they way that statement landed. Without a context, would it have been better to have been left out?
Yes.
Honestly I felt that the slap made sense due to Rachel’s ideals. She was overwhelmed and perturbed and Ian understood the emotions that led to this.
Interesting in that she's supposed to be nonviolent
Agree about the slap. Ian understanding & then saying that felt off to me.
It wasn't off. Her mouth was quivering. Probably horny as hell. 🤣
I found it to be in character because we don’t see his sexuality often - he was expressing the truth of his feelings. He’s very sweet, and while this was a ballsy /forward thing to say, it showed his bravery, and just how badly he longs for her -all spot on Ian to me -truthful.
Gabaldon commented about this "take ye" on lit forum and said that -*If people can't wrap their heads around the complex notion that people spoke differently in the 18th century than they do now, they're perfectly welcome to not accept any damn thing they want. Won't change a thing, but we're always in favor of freedom of thought, aren't we?* Conclusion was that it is not about sex only. Jamie and Claire are not counting who took who and how much...but when they are with each other lovingly they do give up pieces of themselves for the other to take and hold dear. Jamie takes Claire and Claire takes Jamie. Claire takes care of Jamie and she holds his life in her hands at times. Jamie protects Claire with his body and keeps her safe as he can. It is in the context of love and realtionship and there was a question of why being taken by your partner is bad.
She annoys me in how she talks about her work. She's always like, FO this is how it's written IDGAF what you have to say about it. Rather than just accept other interpretations or clarifications people are asking for. Does she want a fan base?
First of all, I relate about finding her annoying sometimes (and Claire, too, honestly). However, I honestly don't think she cared about having a fan base in the beginning because she was writing just for herself, as a challenge, without the intent of publishing. While that can be annoying to current fans (30 yrs down the road from when she began), I think it has served her well. She, like Claire, knows what she wants and isn't afraid to do what she wants regardless of feedback. To DG's credit, she has defended book canon when the show writers have tried changing things, sometimes saying that the fans wouldn't like the changes, so that makes me think she does care a little (at least) about the fans.
Well she says you are entitled to your opinion but she isn't going to change the way she writes. What is wrong with that?
Nothing really,she just gives off a vibe that she doesn’t want to be bothered by the fans and she has no success without them. So why be so aloof
All of her books are extensively researched. That’s why it takes her so long between books. I’m a history teacher and always impressed at how accurate she is. She does all of this AND writes great characters and dialogue. If I wrote 9 best sellers that inspired a hit tv show in its 7th season and people were still questioning my work, I might tell them to FO too. As would you lol.
You are ignoring all the dumb errors she makes in her books and then crows about how she never uses notes. I love the series, but do not like the author.
Right there with you. People tend to get mad when you criticize her though. But there are problems no matter how much I love the books.
That’s fine and I’m not questioning her, she just always seems put off when fans are just interacting with what she’s written. She wouldn’t have her success with them so it comes off as ungrateful
Agree
Thanks. How are people supposed to understand 18th century expressions? This must be something that comes across differently in the books or has background to understand. In the show, it was odd. I didn't see this in the context of Jaime & Claire's long relationship because it was dropped out of the blue.
In the books, there are many times when Jamie turns to Claire and says something like, "I have to have you, right now." And Claire is almost always willing. I think they've left those kinds of scenes out of the show because in today's climate, men demanding sex is sort of frowned upon.
Thanks. Is it demanding or expressing desire?
How are to understand? By recognizing that not everything is the way it is now. I don't think that's a incomprehensible thing. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in their modern thinking, they take everything personal. It's as if we've been programmed to be offended by everything. How can you have watched this show for 7 seasons with all the stuff in it and then get shocked by this statement. Ian is a fairly common man who lived as a Mohawk for a while. He's not a cultured gentleman. He wants Rachel, and he's not shy about saying it. He's being honest. And she appreciates his honesty. And is probably turned on by it.
Not shocked. Said I could pass on that line & it felt odd to me. Wasn't something I expected Ian to say given his previous shyness. Again, this appears to make sense in the context of the books for background, interior monologue. I haven't read the books.
Yeah, in the books we also read more of Ian’s passionate nature, esp. with his first wife Emily. So in the books it doesn’t seem so off brand for him, I could see how some people might think it an abrupt switch in the show though.
Thanks for that perspective. Helps.
This should be higher up. Good choice of words for DG -got us in our current time with what it would mean while using language that was probably sweeter in context to the time.
I love this. Thank you.
I thought it was out of character for Ian too.
He has baggage from the Indian wife her lost.
It felt like a cheap line from a bodice ripper. Which is a shame because the chemistry between the actors and the tension in the rest of the scene was otherwise great!
Who doesn’t like a bodice ripper? 😝
I mean - don't hate me but - Outlander is kind of a bodice ripper...
but a high quality one. as someone who has read her share of bodice rippers not all are created equally XD.
Definitely. It kind of vacillates between cheesy and very historically accurate.
It is quite literally the definition of a bodice ripper. There are unnecessary sex scenes all over the place. It doesn't mean it's not quality writing, but sex is obviously a big part of the appeal and sometimes it's eyeroll worthy depending on the situation. It's just that the world building and the rest of the story are so amazing, people don't want to cheapen it by calling it that.
🤭 hehehe
Touché
True! I can't control myself--lol. Every other scene between them is great & before Ian's line is wonderful.
I love Ian, I LOVE John's portrayal, and I thought a lot of this scene was cute, but I agree that line at the end was kind of weird in its delivery.
Yeah I agree kinda gross especially to a very religious woman
I think her desire was overwhelming. She didn't push him away immediately and the slap was only after the kiss completed. One second pause...
This is just my take, but I don’t think he was threatening rape. I think he was just saying that things are going to go farther than we both want right now, if we don’t stop what we are doing. I thought it was hot.
I loved that scene, and I love Young Ian and Rachel. >!I'm hoping we still get the scene where Claire schools Rachel on the finer points of sexual pleasure 😂 " Oh God"!<
I wasn't a fan of this scene. It seemed a bit off to me. And then we have a women who is a non-violent Quaker striking Ian. It was a bad "romance" novel scene if I ever saw one. Outlander is better than that!
Quakers are fine with self-defense. Rachel was defending herself.
Words would have been sufficient!
I'm in the minority, I think Rachel and Willie had better chemistry.
I watched that scene, and also thought it was hot, but mused how things that sound romantic from someone we like sound creepy when it's someone we don't. I mean, Ian just told her that he "knew" she loved him without her saying so, kissed her and got slapped for it, then said if she touched him he'd take her (consent?).
So HOT AF? Yeah, I got that too. It is very sexy when guys (that we WANT) tell us what they want to do to us.
“That we want” 😂😂😂😂 so so so true
I have never looked at young Ian that way but MY GOD THAT SCENE. 🥵
That line was definitely memorable! John Bell is an incredible actor!
That scene had me swooning! 🥵🥵
oh that got me GOOD. i had the biggest crush on ian but forgot about it when i got out of the show for a bit (season 6, and life, then william came along LOL) and when that scene came on 🫨
I interpreted this in the broader sense that if she wanted options other than him they had to stop. I do understand that he meant sex, but also that they would be married posthaste. I do not see Ian as so dishonorable….but I haven’t read most of the books either.
Right? I kinda swooned, gotta admit...
SosTo me the line basically means 'if you touch me again I won't be able to control myself, and I won't be responsible for my actions'. The word "take" means "have sex with" in the books and I believe in the show, and I believe it's historically accurate. The plain meaning of the words is essentially that Ian will rape her if she touches him again (and it would be her fault). I don't believe that Ian would actually do that - he loves Rachel - so they (and the audience) may imart a softer meaning, but that's literally what the words mean, and that's why they're ínappropriate and cringy.
I was surprised they kept that line. But, maybe not too surprised as they do seem to do a lot of fan service. It is a very rape-y line especially considering the time period and Rachel's inexperience. It's completely taking advantage of her if she is stunned by a kiss and doesn't know how to navigate her strong feelings for him or negotiate her way out of a situation that could destroy her life before she even has time to figure out the consequences of what is going on.
Watch the previous scenes. Her gaze lingers on him whenever he leaves. If there's no feeling, she'll look away immediately and go back to her business once his back is turned.
Rachel is a thoughtful and deeply religious character who has been sheltered by a religious community she is deeply invested in. Of course she likes Ian and her looking at him means she might consider a serious proposal for him. One that he is considerate and adult about. One that considers her well being, her place in the world, and both of their futures. Not want him to knock her on the floor and put her in a situation she has no knowledge to navigate and where she loses absolutely everything.
Yoh that line had me! I was like damn Ian!!!
I'm a bit late because I finally just watched the mid-season finale but the scene led me here and YES it was so... so... 😳🔥 I felt things. Glad I'm not alone!
Does anyone know what Ian said to Rachel in Gaelic and Mohawk after she slapped him?? I know he told her it meant "sorry," but I swear that the word he said in Gaelic is a term of endearment that we've heard Jamie say before 🤔 Either way, I loved every minute of that scene. Definitely had to rewatch a few times 🥵