Hmm, folks seemed to have thought the same thing after Fitz discovered that Olivia fixed the election in 213, and then 10-12 months later, Fitz told us this in 219:
“I have learned only one thing: that I cannot exist without you. I cannot breathe without you. That the man that I am without you…I’m nothing. I’m nothing, and you are everything.”—-Fitzgerald Grant
Then folks kept insisting after 302 that Olivia (who, still, unbeknownst to her, was outed by her lover) should “earn” Fitz. To that Fitzgerald gave us this answer:
“There is nothing you could do that I wouldn’t forgive. Not a single thing. We both know that. We learned the hard way”—Fitzgerald Grant
That quote is in direct reference to Defiance-gate. So, if Fitzgerald doesn’t think he needs to be “earned” by Olivia, what audacity does anyone have to demand that she do so?
Lastly, there was a whole thread a couple weeks ago about how Olivia’s “earn me” statement to Fitz from 220 was bullshit because love is not supposed to be transactional. It’s not, and never mind that Olivia was talking about respect, not love. But somehow it’s OK for Olivia to “earn” Fitz?
I was the one who said that the earn my love thing was bullshit. You could interpret that scene as her demanding respect she well deserves. I could see that. But considering that the way he chose to earn her was to supposedly wait out the clock with her and blow up his presidency, it seems to me that it was about proving his love, not necessarily about treating her with respect. It doesn’t really matter anyway because the whole earning scene didn’t really amount to much in the end. He still stays married, despite all his protestations. He still outed her without her knowing it, like you said. He still had her be the one to break up the relationship between his wife and Andrew. No, she shouldn’t have to “earn” him, just like he shouldn’t have to “earn” her. Maybe it would help if they evolved beyond the same back and forth we’ve seen for the past 3 years.
The problem here is we’re talking like this is the fault of the characters and not the writers. They decided to blow up everything they put out there. He did show her he loved her, and she accepted that. Then they, the writers, decided that it didn’t mean anything and she needed to be with her co workers. None of this makes sense. I can’t fault this as characters flaws, it’s all to do with horrible and inconsistent writing.
"Outlander" has blown up a lot of the received ideas about sex on television — how it’s shot, who it’s for, who it’s made by and who it’s about. The show’s Sept. 20 episode, in which the two lead characters get married and, well, have a lot of sex, was nothing short of revolutionary in its depiction of nudity and intimacy, and in its willingness to entertain the female point of view.
I’m not saying other shows haven’t done compelling and interesting things with sex on occasion, or even on a regular basis. As Emily Nussbaum tweeted the other day, “we are living in a dirty honest TV wonderland.” I agree, and this development is tremendously exciting.
It’s a distinct relief that “Outlander” is not alone. We’ve now seen two full seasons of the twisted power dynamics that inform those strange, intense hotel-room encounters in “Masters of Sex.” “Girls,” obviously, has an honest treatment of sex as one of its main goals, and Jill Soloway, partly inspired by Lena Dunham, just unleashed “Transparent,” a fantastically complex depiction of all kinds of desires. Thanks in part to streaming options and an expanding array of adventurous creators and networks, shows with sexually unapologetic women suddenly seem to be all over the place: “The Fall,” “The Good Wife,” “The Americans,” “Orphan Black,” “New Girl,” “You’re the Worst” and “Orange Is the New Black” are all part of a seemingly unstoppable wave of shows that treat the sexual activities of their leading ladies with refreshing matter-of-factness and genuine interest.
Not that the women on shows mentioned above have easy lives or enjoy universal acceptance — they sometimes face consequences when their desires run counter to prevailing wisdom or their goals bump up against existing power structures. Like all women everywhere, in any era, they are not exempt from the possibilities of violence and assault.
But these women are not depicted as wrong or misguided for wanting and liking sex and pursuing all kinds of intimacy (and sometimes stopping at friendship, a la Abbie Mills on “Sleepy Hollow”). Many of these women are, if anything, quietly celebrated by the show’s writers for being assertive, intelligent and unconventional. Unlike many of the mainstream shows and movies I grew up with, where the women who liked and sought sex were often punished in some way, I don’t detect in this new wave of programs an unconscious or semi-conscious desire on the part of the storytellers to bring these women down a few pegs — or kill them off — for being independent and unrepentant about their desires.
This is new. This shift occurring on this many notable shows is new. But “Outlander” has taken this welcome trend a step further.
Maureen Ryan, 'Outlander,' The Wedding Episode And TV's Sexual Revolution. (via patsan)
“ shows with sexually unapologetic women suddenly seem to be all over the place: “The Fall,” “The Good Wife,” “The Americans,” “Orphan Black,” “New Girl,” “You’re the Worst” and “Orange Is the New Black” are all part of a seemingly unstoppable wave of shows that treat the sexual activities of their leading ladies with refreshing matter-of-factness and genuine interest….”
Notice that Scandal isn’t in that list. Olivia spends all her time having sex that she is made to feel ashamed of and hooking up with people to forget the sex she’s ashamed of. Idk why anyone would think Scandal is a revolutionary. Watching all these other shows has made me see just how backward Scandal is.