The Conversation We Need to Be Having About the “Geneva” Chapter in Outlander

TW: Sexual Assault
Spoilers for Voyager

In the third installment of the Outlander books, Voyager, there is an infamous chapter, 14, titled “Geneva.” The titular character makes quite a few waves, and there are lots of conversations going on about that. However, I think there are a few pieces missing when the "fandom" as a whole discusses it.

I'm going to try to format a cohesive discussion of all the salient points about sexual autonomy, consent, gender roles, and power dynamics, as well as authorial intent and responsibility.

This is, surprise surprise, a rape scene. First thing to get out of the way: It is absolutely a rape scene. Jamie is compelled to comply with Geneva's sexual requests because she has threatened his family. See my post on "Call a Rape a Rape" for the same situation featuring King Louis and Claire. So already Geneva's motives and execution is completely wrong.

Yet I think that placing Geneva in the position of unquestionable villain negates an important conversation we need to have about this scene. I’m not saying her actions are in any way justified, just that I wish the story had played out differently.

Geneva has some legitimate complaints. She is a seventeen year old girl who is going to be married off, and likely raped there, too, or is assuming she will be, because she is a piece of meat to both her father and fiancé. This objection, by the way, Jamie glibly dismisses in saying that she'll be a rich widow in a few years. As has happened throughout time, and is still happening now, women's bodies and equally as importantly her autonomy, her ability to choose what she wants to do with her own damn self, is sold without her consent. And she is supposed to be grateful to then men who treat her like cattle because at least she'll get to buy pretty things. Even before she does anything wrong, the narrative dismisses her, chalking up her being “spoiled” when what she really wants is basic human rights.

Geneva shows an impressive strength and will here that ought to have more play. She could have been a hero, a woman claiming her own body and desires outside the accepted pathways created by men.

But then we come back to the rape. Any rallying cry falls dead in our throats as we come back to that. She goes about it the wrong way, but so wrongly that it tends to negate the other parts of her argument.

There is in fact an alarming dismissal of her pain and fear. Jamie is constantly annoyed by this little girl -- who is seventeen and a literal child, may I remind us all -- who is whining about stupid things like bodily autonomy and having any choices for herself. Oh yes, what a brat.
(As a note, obviously age of consent and what is considered adulthood varies across time, but this book was published in 1993, and these are characters, not real people. Making her seventeen when she just as easily might have been eighteen feels like a very specific choice that makes me uncomfortable.)

That leads me to another issue with Geneva's depiction. She is portrayed as this strange male fantasy of a woman, a young girl (half his age) who needs a big strong man to teach her how things really go. There is a weird tension of Jamie wanting to set her straight, to teach her a lesson, that bleeds into the sexual desire he feels for her. It's quite literally a kink, brat and brat tamer, that takes on heavily paternalistic roles. And perhaps it's no wonder that Geneva would seek to do this with a man old enough to be her father. Her whole life is defined by old men. Moreover, she, who I will say again is seventeen, is fettishized and sexualized. She is treated like a blow up doll, just laying there and letting Jamie get his pleasure from her.

Are we supposed to say she deserves to have the one shred of autonomy, of choice in her young life, snatched away yet again? She's being used by every man around her, including Jamie. But that's not a conversation we get to have because she's a spoiled brat who blackmails Jamie. Ergo, she is squarely in the villain category as defending rapists is not a place I want to go. So we miss out on all that nuance.

But the thing is, she's a character. She might have done anything. I think the far more interesting, the fascinating and diverse story, is where she takes these steps without threat, or perhaps makes them and takes them back, scared and unsure of her next step but trying to own her body and existence. She's young and scared, and desperate for a bit of control in her life. I think that would be a character to whom many of us could relate, and a perspective not yet heard in the series.

And if it's important to have a diversity representation of assailants as well as survivors, which it certainly is, turn a few hundred more pages. Geillis is there for that. So instead of repeating a plot line of rape, again, why not give a complex and fascinating examination of young women's sexual exploitation and exploration?

But, as it stands, it is rape. Undoubtedly. Yet it reads like a sex scene.

It honestly made me feel ill and brought back memories of tone-deaf 80s movies where rape scenes were made to be titillating and sexy. I was honestly horrified reading this scene. It is fundamentally sexist as it reads like a man really ought to enjoy himself if the woman is hot enough. Obviously there are times Jamie thinks about not wanting to be there, but then, after having sex the first time, he stays the rest of the night.

So the point of that is what? That well, since you're being raped anyway, if you're hard up enough, might as well enjoy it because at least she's hot? It also fundamentally dismisses Jamie’s prior trauma; he is a rape survivor already, and ignoring any trauma response to having his body yet again used, being forced to comply via threats to someone he loves, just like Black Jack did, is incredibly upsetting. It feels, again, like it is supposed to be read differently because it’s a woman instead of a man, and fundamentally misunderstands that a significant part of the traumatizing elements of rape is the loss of control and autonomy over one’s own body.

And again, if the point was to have this strained and difficult intimacy, to depict tensions and negotiations between these characters, then it should not have been a rape. There are plenty of other scenes that depict the guilt and struggle, particularly of men, when they get bodily pleasure from a non consensual act. The aforementioned Geillis and Ian is one, as well as Jamie's rape by Black Jack.

Now, for the second rape that exists in this one scene.

Jamie also acts nonconsensually. While having sex for the first time (I hesitate to say "having sex" because Jamie isn't there of his own volition, but it is, upsettingly, portrayed as a sex scene), Geneva tells Jamie to stop. He doesn't.

That's rape also. She says no, he does it anyway. There is no consent so it isn't all right.

I am perfectly happy for characters to do wrong. Characters are flawed, and they should be. I have some major problems with Jamie after this, but if this is what Jamie would do, then we each get to make decisions about his character from there. And honestly, this is very much something book Jamie would do. He does the same thing to Claire back in book 1. He is hurting her and tells him to stop, yet he goes on.

So this is an established part of Jamie’s character, and that is perhaps understandable with his background. I certainly want and would argue that Jamie, the hero of our story who, again, is a rape survivor himself, to be better, but he doesn’t have to be.

Where this gets dicey and very problematic is that there is never a moment where this act is even questioned. Not by Jamie, who might say "wow, I probably shouldn't have done that but I was so caught up" or even "yeah that wasn't OK but she had it coming." I don't agree with that logic, but at least it would he an examination of his actions. Or Geneva could have some reaction. She could be appalled, or scared, or even aroused, as long as that specific violation was noted. Some reaction was necessary to even acknowledge it as a non consensual act. Yet we get none.

It's virginity stereotypes run rampant. There are grown ass women out there thinking a hymen covers the entire opening of the vagina. There are many, many more who are certain that sex must be painful the first time. There are even more men and women around the world who thing virginity is a physical absolute and not a social construct. And this scene plays right into that stereotype.

Geneva is a male fantasy version of a virgin. She is an object onto which desire can be foisted, her "no" doesn't matter because she's just an object, and, despite being violated, she is raring to go for round two. 

Still more, the book largely ignores the fascinating power dynamics at play in this situation as that allows both of them to take advantage of the other. Geneva, as a woman of means with information held over Jamie's head, has institutional and societal power. Jamie, however, is a sexually experienced, adult man with a teenage virgin who is so ignorant and/or terrified that she doesn't even move during sex. All that is missed because Jamie's actions are depicted as totally rightful.

I am remiss to bring in authorial intent (see my post on Authorial Intent and how it halts discussion in it's tracks), but I think it is an important point here. Diana Gabaldon made a lengthy statement regarding Jamie's actions and criticisms of them, in which she defended Jamie's actions and dismissed those making the critiques.

Let me say what the problem is there. It is perfectly fine to say that Jamie the character might do this. It might be right for the character or for the story. What is not all right is to say the actions themselves were rightful. They were in fact rape, and absolutely not okay.

Now, people aren't perfect. We can't see every blind spot or unconscious bias we have, and I respect that Diana wants to defend a character she loves. What I don't respect is her outright dismissal of the people calling out Jamie's problematic behavior, assigning motive that it is somehow for attention or to make waves rather than well-intentioned critique. I take that personally. It is not for attention I take issue with Jamie's actions, and to assign such scurrilous motives is, in my opinion, out of line.

I would not bring up authorial intent except that I think it adds this to the conversation: we are not meant to question Jamie's actions. An argument about this scene might be that it’s left open to allow for discussion. But the author herself has tried to shut down discussion about this topic. It casts into doubt all the other scenes of dubious or flat out nonconsensual scenes regarding Jamie.

And it makes me all the more upset and nervous about how this, a rape scene on a variety of levels, is written like a sex scene.

I think we as a society and as individuals have a responsibility to examine our own biases in this area. And especially when we have the chance to influence people, to bring light to important conversations, it is our duty to help dismantle rape culture and other prevalent issues in our society.

I am disappointed. I am disappointed by what the storyline for Geneva might have been. I am disappointed in Jamie, a character I am finding it harder and harder to love. I am disappointed in Diana, for dismissing a valid criticism of her work. But I am hopeful for the conversations we will continue to have on this and other difficult topics. I am hopeful that as we continue to work together, consent will become more and more natural, as natural as it is necessary.