Originally Posted by Josh Z
I've already explained my position on this. The storyline about Claire and her husband finding common ground in sex is a writerly contrivance to justify the sex and nudity.
Hmm, no. It explains where their relationship is just before they part, which is important to how Claire feels and reacts to events in the future.
It appears that these characters aren't even going to see each other again for a while in the show. Why is it important for us to know that they have a very physical relationship? If anything, having strong emotional ties would be more important, because that would explain why Claire is so desperate to get back to her husband. She could have sex with any studly guy she wants, but if she really loves her husband, she'll stay true for him and keep trying to get back to him.
You're really missing the point. She does love him deeply, but they are alienated from the years of separation. Wars change people. They've barely seen each other in years, and hardly know the people they've become. Their physical relationship is one place they can come back to without those restraints.
As for your ideas about a woman "staying true"... well. Never mind.
If Claire's main attachment to her husband is just the sex, and she's got studmuffin Jamie rarin' to give her a roll in the hay, what's her motivation for wanting to go back to her husband at all?
Even if she hated her husband, and her only connection to this other guy was physical, that's still insufficient motivation for wanting to stay in the freakin' 18th century if you are a 20th century woman, accustomed to independence and autonomy. How would you like it if you were essentially a piece of property?
And that's important to the story how...?
This is a story about an (essentially) modern woman in the 18th century world. Showing that she has modern ideas about sex and sexuality is an important part of her character.
What justification is there for Claire's nude scene in the second episode? The series really couldn't find any other way to convey that she changed her clothes other than to show her on camera completely in the buff? How is that not gratuitous?
Starting to wonder who is really the one from the 18th century here. The purpose was to show her getting dressed, start to finish, and that required taking off her clothes in an entirely non-sexual context. If you really find that so objectionable, you seriously need to find another show.
The answer, of course: Because it's on the Starz network and it can show T&A to titillate the audience. There's no other reason for it.
Um, a huge part of the audience for this show, if not the vast majority is female, and I assure you, few to none of us were titillated by a woman, who was obviously feeling embarrassed about her situation, getting dressed. If anyone was, well, that says more about them than the show.
What is the WRITER'S motivation for putting lots of sex in this story?
Other than it being in the source material? It's a time-travel romance. That's what it is. When these books started coming out, they were in the romance section of the bookstore (yes, a real bookstore, it was a while ago). They've reached a crossover audience because of the time travel element and the fairly solid historical fiction writing, but at their core, these are romance novels, the same genre of the Harlequins you deride. Sex is an important part of it.
And if a total of, oh, 3 minutes or so in a grand total of two scenes out of two hours thus far is "lots" of sex to you, again, you need a different show. You aren't going to be happy with this one.