No. To me, that whole line of reasoning comes uncomfortably close to saying a female rape victim was asking for it. Being assaulted is never the fault of the victim, no matter the circumstances. People who aren't getting that are the ones that need to get up to speed and catch a clue here.

Yes. Mostly what I've seen is "oh, that's something I didn't know. That explains why Jamie feels unfit to be a husband" etc. Things that lead to discussion and consideration of character development are great. Ron Moore was right, there's a lot of debate and it is interesting to see what people have taken from it.

Since a lot of people don't know that rape can cause a physiological response of arousal (in either sex actually), the ignorant ones are like, "Jamie liked it HE MUST BE GAY!!1!" I found the depiction of Jamie's rape to be almost exactly like the book; seeing it happen versus reading an account told to Claire was MUCH…

I believe I was clear.
By all means, point to another reason why people are making "ongoing comments" about Jamie's sexuality.
If you don't understand what your own comments implied, I can't really help you.

Clearly you don't get it, since you directly contradicted what I was responding to. And you're clearly not interested in discussion of the show unless it's to make snarky comments about it, so it would be a waste of time to engage further.

I was responding to Yvonne's claim that people are doing just that.

People who jump to the conclusion that Jamie is gay because he was raped by a man are, to put it delicately, fucking morons. I'm not too concerned about those people's opinions, nor should anyone else be. Good lord.

I really like that they do that, actually. It's a mark of excellent writing and storytelling that the characters sometimes act like assholes. It makes them feel real.

Agreed.
The common denominator in ALL BJR's sexual encounters are that he is a rapist. The age and sex of his victims seems less important than the fact that they are all vulnerable in some way.
All this preoccupation with homosexuality in the context of this discussion is pretty offensive, IMO.
All I'm hearing is…

You didn't! I meant the general "you", not YOU particularly. I'm realizing more and more that some people really can't distinguish between "this is not to my taste" and "this is categorically BAD". Your meaning was more than clear, JB, no worries. :-)

I'm quite enjoying Moore's Outlander ;-)

That's what it seemed to be suggesting to me. I haven't read the book in a while so I don't remember if he was involved but it would be an interesting adaptive choice.

And as I already pointed out, this is an article reviewing the TV episode. With the exception of a troll down-thread somewhere, I think we're all here to weigh in on the article about the TV episode and the show itself. I feel confident that most commenters here don't need that spelled out for them.

I noticed that, but I think it was deliberate. If you watch closely, the cut goes from Mary to the Comte being introduced at dinner. I don't think that was a mistake at all.

We had a civil conversation about it. You're the one having a tantrum over an exchange between two strangers that doesn't involve you.
:-)

I think that will be addressed next week.

Oh, this is the person you were talking to last week. Good point.

No, he was the prison warden, and I was wrong, he appeared in the penultimate episode of Season 1.

…because this is a review of the show, by a reviewer who hasn't read the books and we can just assume that you're talking about the show?

I was surprised by Jamie's reaction. The scene at the end of last season was changed significantly from the book, as Claire doesn't goad Jamie into reenacting his assault and fighting back. Maybe they just moved that beat to season 2.
That prostitute must have some seriously strong jaws to bite through his pants,…