Terry Dresbach

Outlander Costume Designer

Reply To: On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry)

Home Outlander Costuming Discussion Forums General Outlander Discussion On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry) Reply To: On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry)


I realize I’m not going to be very popular for suggesting this, but I am really bothered by the fact that most of the comments here cast Mr. Heughan as an unwilling victim and I don’t think that’s realistic. I am not happy with the rank objectification I’ve seen but I recognize that he has encouraged it (kind of mad at him for that actually) however unwittingly. Surrender to patriarchy isn’t feminism. I do not consider someone like Miley Cyress a feminist. She’s selling her body on purpose – clearly. Sam Heughan has done something a little more subtle but just as anti-feminist. He has sent the message via his twitter account that he sees nothing wrong with objectifying women. My brother’s immediate response to Mr. Heughan’s frolicking pool time video was to give one those male porn chuckles and say, “Look world – here’s my sex kitten.” My heart sunk because that is what that video said. It did not say, “look world (the reason you post on twitter at all) this is a woman I love.” He wouldn’t have dreamt of presenting his daughter(someone he loves and values as a person – not just a body) to the world like that. In my head I’m thinking, “goddammit, another Hollywood train wreck of a man who doesn’t know the difference between love and lust.” A man in love doesn’t do that. A man who lusts after and objectifies women does. And all those people on twitter who are into objectification themselves heard his tune – the siren call blared across the interwebs. It was like the pied piper blew his flute. That poor woman was called a whore thereafter – because that’s how he presented her to the world (why the f&^% would he do that to her?). The truth is, he does send out the message that he is fine with objectification. Remember, he also said “wow,” raised his highbrows suggestively, and and high fived Diana when she commented on his rear.

Some would say that I’m victim blaming, but I would argue that you are defending someone who doesn’t deserve it. And, you’re hurting him by doing that. I do not know the man so I can’t say that I like him or not, but I do see his confusion and I am human being. It concerns me if he doesn’t know what objectification is, how unhealthy and dangerous it can be, how important it is that you don’t confuse it with love… I don’t want to see another Hollywood train wreck especially not connected to my favorite book series and favorite producer. He will never learn what he’s doing wrong if people don’t tell him. (Of course, for all I know he does know and doesn’t care). The truth is, he is getting back what he sent out. Further, I think it’s splashing onto the other men, specifically Graham, as well as the show itself. Terry, if he doesn’t realize what he’s doing and you value Sam you will get him some instructors. Cause he really isn’t doing okay.

There is nothing I would like better than to see the star of this show get it. I feel confident that if he did and conducted his life accordingly the objectification issue could be a valuable topic of discussion. But it really isn’t now because the objectivists appear to be right when they say he likes it. You can discuss objectivism all you want but you won’t get anywhere until you acknowledge this part of it. The discussion has to be honest in order to be productive. Sam could be a very good spokesman for the feminist cause (if he understood and lived it). Terry, ask him – would Jamie Fraser post a video of Claire like that? Diana wrote a love story. Sam should maybe read it.