Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Mad Men 3x08 Reaction (Patreon)

Published:
2025-10-05 23:45:32
Edited:
2025-11-20 01:01:54
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Files

mad men 308

________________________ patreon - https://www.patreon.com/LMreactions twitter - https://twitter.com/LMreaction tv time - lola - skysstillblue, milena - oneofthe100

Comments

Robert Dirk H.

Okay, that story about the electricity was really funny. I hope you can still cook the chicken tomorrow. I always feel bad when I let food go bad :D

Jenny D

Even though the Pete scene is clearly rape and coercion, they weirdly didn't intend for it to read that way. Vincent Kartheiser said the Au Pair actress was supposed to kiss him back, and that Matthew Weiner said it wasn't supposed to be rape. Which begs the question, why have Pete basically force himself in after being rejected the first time? Why allude to the Au Pair crying? To me it seems like either things got lost in translation from script to filming, or Matthew Weiner doesn't understand the gravity of sexual coercion

Nina

It would still be rape if she kissed him back, he has her cornered, there's an implication that he could tell on her and there's a power imbalance, she can't really consent anymore. If I'm honest I don't really trust them saying they didn't intend it to be read this way, there's too many things wrong here for it to be one or two lines or scenes that weren't done right. I think it IS possible they realized after the fact that this was wrong to put in Pete's character arc. There is no other reading of what happened here, it's rape. At best it's idiotic writing if they thought this would come across any other way.

Taya

Great reaction! Yeahhhhh I was dreading this episode. Pete stans (aka me) taking a big L tonight. I'm sure the other commenters will delve a little deeper into those scenes but yeah. Goddammit Pete! "Then I can have something to look at when I tell the story about the time we went to Rome." LOVE this line. After all that, the trip didn't elicit a positive lasting change in their relationship. It was all a dream, they were just pretending. Now it'll be nothing more than a vague memory, a story about something that happened. Heartbreaking that the only time Don seems genuinely passionate about his wife is when they're literally roleplaying as strangers.

Nina

I think Pete's privileged upbringing is a big reason why he always thinks he deserves everything, even if his parents weren't great, he had it amazing compared to most Americans. This made him not fit to handle situations where he's not immediately given the keys to the kingdom, he never developed the tools to deal with rejection, he never had to. No surprise he then acts like a child, the way he shows shame to Trudy is the same.

Nina

My boy loves the hunt. Chasing women? FUN! Being married? omg so boring! am i right fellas? It's the patriarchal idea that men have to conquer women like they're trophies that completely contradicts monogamous relationships, there is no making sense of it. It's not surprising that cheating was at some point seen as being okay (or the woman's fault), cause apparently it was just "man's nature". Like sure guys, we wanna fuck around? Let's do open relationship instead. Seems nice until the idea of the women also fucking around makes them upset, after all she's MY trophy.

Infode

Before and After knowing the intentions of the scene between Pete and the Au Pair, both times it still plays INSANE. I understand they have 7 days to shoot each episode but, at any time in either the writing, shooting and editing process, how did anybody not see that whatever was intended DOES NOT translate one bit on screen.

Taya

@Nina, wholeheartedly agree that it was a mistake for Pete's character arc. I kind of adopt a "this never happened" attitude for this episode otherwise it's too upsetting lol

Nina

In my mind, if you want to make it look at least a little bit more consensual, you MUST have the woman be more forward about wanting to thank him for his help and have Pete be okay with no thanks at all. If she's clearly the one initiating you'll go "yeah it's still gross cheating but he didn't pressure her". They did the exact opposite, not only did he ASK for a thank you, she was clearly uncomfortable and even told him about her boyfriend to try and dissuade him. After that he goes back AGAIN to demand a quid pro quo. At that point it absolutely doesn't matter anymore if she "kisses him back" or not, this is a rape scene. How could you write these scenes this way if that wasn't your intention?

Haye Zeus

Damn, I totally forgot Pete did that shit. Of all the shit Pete does I would think this one would stick.. Cause if this was supposed to be just cheating, then it didn’t come across in the show.

Kara

This will likely be the only time I do this for the entire show but I'm going to transcribe the DVD commentary for this episode, because it's helpful context: Matthew Weiner (show creator): Do you think he rapes her? [...] Vincent Kartheiser (Pete's actor): I think it's what you said, she's in a position in this country where everyone's her boss. So in that way there's a level of sexual harassment to any sort of encounter MW: I felt that she on some level would have wanted to be with him but there's no doubt in my mind that he forced the situation Lisa Albert (the episode writer): I felt that she gave him permission MW: Yeah she did give him permission LA: But I didn't feel that she wanted to be with him MW: That's exactly what I'm saying, I totally agree Please bear in mind this is DVD boxset commentary recorded ~2009, so their understanding of language around consent etc is 15+ years out of date. This is actually the third thing where someone said "on the commentary they said XYZ" on Reddit, then when I listened to the commentary it doesn't match what the person said. Always check your primary sources gang! For my own thoughts I'll just copy what I wrote on Discord when we were discussing this last week: "Even if she consents, even if she 'wanted to', she can't say no due to her employment position (will be deported), so whether its 'consensual' or desired is not relevant to me". I will say that Pete does face one consequence: his guilt and shame is so obvious he implicitly admits it to Trudy and she implicitly acknowledges it. This is something they both "know" (like how Betty "knew"?) about their marriage moving forward, presumably. 100% agree on the Don/Betty takes. IMO she was testing if the relationship can still be good, and it can be, but only temporarily, only in Rome. Back home its the same old deal: married to a philanderer who will never put your needs above work, who barely even sees you when you aren't putting in effort, who expects you to be a magical perfect housewife with nothing else going on. It was nice seeing Don in full charming mode though, it gives you a taste of what he was like when they first started dating, it's easy to believe she would fall madly in love with him and 'run off to make babies'. Bonus Thoughts: No Peggy or Roger story this episode and you don't notice at all, it's a really strong ensemble cast. Joan doesn't even work their any more and she's still keeping sordid secrets for Sterling Cooper executives. I know Betty's advice to Sally is probably not "good" but its cute she's trying to share a honest truth with her for once.

Kara

@Scott I posted the full context in my comment and I'll copy paste it below, but Lisa Albert co-wrote the episode (Matthew Weiner has a co-writing credit on most eps because that's what Mad Men does for showrunner contributions), and all the eps are broken in the writers room with everyone contributing ideas on the story. MW defers to Lisa a lot on writing thru the commentary. Matthew Weiner (show creator): Do you think he rapes her? [...] Vincent Kartheiser (Pete's actor): I think it's what you said, she's in a position in this country where everyone's her boss. So in that way there's a level of sexual harassment to any sort of encounter MW: I felt that she on some level would have wanted to be with him but there's no doubt in my mind that he forced the situation Lisa Albert (the episode writer): I felt that she gave him permission MW: Yeah she did give him permission LA: But I didn't feel that she wanted to be with him MW: That's exactly what I'm saying, I totally agree Please bear in mind this is 15+ years old + language around consent etc wasn't as developed, but both Matthew Weiner and Lisa Albert think it was a forced sexual advance, with at-best coerced consent. Just FYI, Matthew Weiner doesn't have any "sexual assault" allegations against him, he has one allegation that he made a sexual comment towards a woman writer in the S3 writers room (Kater Gordon) and following this Marti Noxon (another writer) supported her, making non-specific allegations about a 'toxic workplace'. You can look them up for full context if you want. This is the only allegation that has been made + the only complaints about the workplace, Matthew Weiner hasn't ever been accused of assault. Just to be clear I believe that he made this comment. But we need to be careful about the language we use because there's a huge difference between making a sexual comment and committing rape.

Kara

half-cooked chicken soup lets goooo 😋

Mike

There's obviously a power imbalance at play here and I (usually) I think you have to read what's in the on-screen text of the show, but it's also worth sharing that, according to Kartheiser, the actress simply wasn't comfortable with some of what was scripted and that they had to adapt on the day to "imply" what happens. It's a fair criticism to say that they didn't do a good job of depicting the story they wanted to depict -- and we probably should hold stories about sexual assault and coercion to a higher standard when it comes to communicating what is (or isn't) happening -- but there are production realities that can impede that sometimes. Certainly it's better to be hearing this story than the all-to-common alternative where the actress was pressured into doing something she didn't want to do.

JBK405

I had no idea that Pete's scenes were supposed to be read any other way. I always saw it as a direct non-consensual rape, and I thought that's how we were MEANT to see it. My interpretation was that it was meant to show how dangerous self-interest and entitlement can be even without Malice: Pete doesn't specifically want to HURT this woman, but he does anyway because he's that focused on himself without any concern for her. I think the reason Betty is SO responsive to Henry Francis, is that he SEES her. It almost doesn't matter what he actually does to woo her. She's enamored that here is a man -- who is successful and powerful like Don -- who looks at her like that. We know Don hasn't looked at her like that since before they were married. To see Henry take time out of his day to help her, and saying that the only reward he needs is the feeling that he gets from making her happy, is like Prince Charming for her.

Kara

The script likely didn't have any scripted coercive elements (i dont have the script book because it costs like 5k 😭) but my main point by including the commentary is that Lisa Albert, Matthew Weiner, Vincent Kartheiser watching it back all agree that even if it wasn't "rape" it was rape-adjacent, non-consensual coerced sex. So rape, in modern terms. And we all know it's not possible to have a fully consensual encounter with a neighbour's live-in worker who will be fired + deported to her home country if you report her. On the rest of the commentary they discuss her being subservient to everyone, as an immigrant worker class who has fewer rights (very sadly comparable to what we see in the news today). On Vincent Kartheiser's comments, it's a third-hand account at this point. It's a WSJ journalist who was at a Remy Martin private gathering reporting what a drunk Kartheiser said Matthew Weiner said, so idk lol. I'm sure there's truth in it but there's also cognac. idk whether this happened before or after the commentary too. Mainly, all 3 of them reflecting on the show they made, all feel it was basically rape and that's what's in the show. article here for anyone interested: https://archive.is/3TpN4

Kara

Henry is very charming here, it feels like an old school hollywood movie courtship except one of the people is married w/ 3 kids oopsy.

Mike

Oh, don't get me wrong. It was supposed to be a story about power imbalances an Pete taking advantage of her. Any way you cut it, that wasn't enthusiastic consent. But what the show wanted to portray / thought it *was* portraying here is really relevant to how the show does (or doesn't) address this going forward. (It's not unlike the Jaime/Cersei rape scene in Thrones in the way.) This is a good episode telling an important story. But it's also, unfortunately, a moment where we have to do a bit a work to square what we watched with what "happened" from the show's perspective. The show wants to tell three-dimensional stories about three-dimensional characters and this *obviously* qualifies. But I don't think they meant to ring the same Bad Guy Rapist bell that they did with Greg, for example.

Chris B

"Girl, you can take a knife and stab him. Its allowed. I will" lmao

Mike

OK, I'll stand up for Don here. He excused himself from that conversation at the front door because he could tell Carla wanted to speak privately with Betty.

Chris B

That last point tho...

Kara

agreed

Kara

every episode someone has to be the don defender and if you're not sure who it is, it's your turn 😩 (i agree)

Chris Truex

In regards to your circuit breaker: I've done that same thing once in a while. Some boxes don't fully flick to "off", there's a middle position, where you have to flick it to off, then back on. I believe it's to make sure you know which one has popped the breaker, and which was just shut off. But sometimes it fools you for a while...

Sebastian

It's easy to root for Henry because we know Don is chronically unfaithful to Betty, but does he know that? He's actually kind of a scumbag, shamelessly hitting on her even when she's PREGNANT with her husbands's child. Maybe he can tell she's unhappy, but then again her people are Nordic.

Sebastian

The thing is the au pair could say no. It's just she's not going to say no, because of the implication.

Sebastian

I don't know if it's really about patriarchy and societal expectations for Don. In his case I see it more as him being deeply afraid to be found out, so the distanced flirting in the beginning is easier, when he can play the role of Don Draper, mysterious bon vivant ad exec. A good marriage would require him to open up and reveal the Dick Whitman underneath, something he feels he cannot do.

Sebastian

I definitely think the scene reads (and should be read) as coercive semi-rape. It's not violent assault, but Pete pushes himself on a woman who doesn't want to sleep with him. But I don't want it retconned out. I actually find it a pretty mature perspective to show how people who aren't monsters can still do some really heinous things, without understanding how heinous they are, driven by insecurities and selfishness. It's interesting to me that a show would go there, and still ask us to sympathize with Pete through all his awful behavior.

Patrick

I always to want to like Pete, but he does not make it easy. Sometimes he is kind and sweet, like even when he says ‘isn’t that smart’ to Joan, I feel like he means it. ‘Like oh you’ve done a clever thing here well done’ but then has a very dark side trying to live up to something.

bondbond53

I'm the Don defender! He's hot. I rest my case

Taya

He's trying to be like Don and failing spectacularly. I don't think this kind of stuff is what he truly wants deep down, but it's what he thinks he has to do to feel like a man. (for that matter it's not what Don truly wants either, but at least Don is good at it and doesn't come off like a predator)

Taya

@Sebastian, I agree it's scumbag behavior generally BUT it's tempered by the rest of Henry's behavior imo. I mean he is not actively pursuing Betty, he's letting her come to him. He seems genuinely interested in getting to know her as a person, not just wanting sex or a brief sordid affair. So far he's behaving as courteous and "gentleman-ly" as it's possible for "the other man" to behave lol.

windyMelon

He seems like he is constantly trying to understand human social behaviour, but doesn’t quite get it. I’d say he’s like a child, but even that is a little insulting to children. It’s more like he’s a robot that has no concept of empathy. Anything he does that is remotely compassionate seems entirely forced, or like he’s learned it from tv and is doing his best impression of it The rape was awful, but it fits with his character very well in my opinion. I bet he didn’t even consider for a second that he might have raped this woman. In his mind, he probably thought the worst of it was the cheating. This does not excuse him in any way. Ignorance is not an excuse. It does make sense for who his character is though (not that he’s inherently evil, just that he has no concept of the harm he might bestow on people in these kinds of situations)

Kara

@Sebastian Ken: Are you gonna hurt women? Pete: I'm not gonna hurt these women! Why would I ever hurt these women? I feel like you're not getting this at all!

Kara

+1 on windyMelon's comment. Pete is an extremely flawed, damaged person who was raised in an unhospitable environment washed with privilege (very easy to say "oh boohoo rich person problems" but it seems like there was zero love in that household), likely raised by a nanny, shipped off to boarding school, then paid-for university. it's easy to root for people when you understand them even when they do atrocious things (see Game of Thrones Jamie Lannister etc) + you're hoping they do better.

Kara

"what about the philandering and identity theft" WHAAATTT IDENTITY THEFTTTTT???

Kara

I think Henry can tell she's trapped in an awful relationship, like many other women. He's divorced and probably knows what it's like firsthand to feel trapped in an awful relationship due to legality, societal pressure and "stay together for the kids". His position is unethical but I have sympathy, it's a nuanced situation.

Kara

@Kev: I genuinely appreciate your input / reply and agree that people are very quick to write off certain things re: "a man wrote this, a woman wrote this" etc, both of the rape (or rape-adjacent) scenes we've seen were in episodes written by women generated by writers rooms with at least 50% women BUT there are male writers and Matthew Weiner is the showrunner and it's ultimately his ship. I've made an effort to highlight the contributions of women but like everything in life it's nuanced and unless you were in the room you have no idea where an idea came from (people regularly misremember too). My main take on the scene is that it's not possible for this woman to consent to sexual contact with a neighbour who helped her replace a dress she ruined, because with a single sentence he could get her fired and deported + ruin her life. So even if the scene showed her enthusiastically consenting, inviting him in, lusting over him etc, there's a fundamental implication of reciprocation or life-destroying punishment, like other types of power imbalance (employer employee, prison guard prisoner, etc). It's more nuanced because she doesn't work for Pete but he absolutely could get her fired if he wanted to and she knows this. So I'm not too bothered by the presentation of it, whether its accurate to the writers room's intentions etc. It's fundamentally coerced sex to me. On screen the scene definitely seems like she's not into it at all. So yeah, I think Pete raped her. I can't talk more about it because to speak honestly involves spoilers (if you've seen the whole show I'm sure you understand). In the vaguest possible way, I agree with some others who think it was a mistake to include this in this way. I would have shot it differently. Also yeah - the only two sources seem to be the one third-hand article, and the commentary quotes I included. It's worth noting they do talk more about the situation overall on the commentary but its 44 minutes long obviously. They talk more about au pairs being a sort of NY underclass in this era, rented immigrants who can't step out of line or they get 'sent home'. And they talk about how Pete isn't initially helping her to fuck her, he's doing it to perform as a 'gentleman' and feel good about himself. I transcribed the rest on Discord, I'll copy paste it below if you're interested: scene 1 (pete helping her with the stained dress) Matthew Weiner: Mentally his intentions are flirtatious obviously but I don't think he expects anything to happen here does he? Lisa Albert (writer, who broke the story): No, no Vincent Kartheiser (pete actor): I agree with you, it's a moment of reaching out to somebody like you said, a moment of loneliness, he feels like he's being a gentleman they talk a bit about how if she agreed to have a drink with him it could have been a nice social relationship and mw says he's "not sure why she didn't, but she's probably preyed on a lot" and "i'm wrong about pete and she's right" (its hard to explain in text but mw often talks about the characters like they're real people, he often asks the actors what they were feeling as the characters in the moment, as if they have life beyond him) lisa albert (writer) said she wanted to tell a story about this au pair underclass, who work for rich people and are at their whims (will be kicked out the country if they don't comply)

Erik D

Yes, I agree that a lot of the tension within Pete (currently in the show) comes from him trying to cosplaying what he thinks masculinity looks like and mimicking Don’s confidence, power, and ease with women.

Taya

@Kara, I can totally hear that in Pete's voice lolol. In fact a lot of Dennis Reynolds quotes I can picture him saying. "I am untethered and my rage knows no bounds!!" "Be gone, vile man, be gone from me!"

Sebastian

Uvf bhgohefg va frnfba fvk jurer ur tbrf "QB LBH XABJ JR UNQ N CHOYVP BSSREVAT HAQREJNL? NAQ ABJ VGF EHVARQ!" vf cher Qraavf Erlabyqf.

Kara

@sebastian: IDIOTS! SAVAGES! IDIOTS!

Alex Bernier

This reaction is why i watch reactions. L&M are way more perceptive about human and romantic relationship stuff than i am. They're asking the right questions and pointing out the important plot points that i just didn't pay as much attention to my first time watching. I want the next 10 episodes now lol

Scott

Trudy is an icon and worth one billion of that little shit...imagine having her, and this is how you live?

Zosko1

All the comments trying to explain Pete give a real ick to my soul

windyMelon

He’s a good character. It’s fun to watch good characters and discuss them 🤷🏻‍♂️

Mike

Crgr'f zbz vf tbvat gb yrnea jung gur vzcyvpngvbaf ner, hasbeghangryl.

Kara

The commentary I quotes, it's more like cross-talk. Albert cuts in, MW stops speaking, lets her finish, then agrees with. But broadly yeah, a commentary is just a sample of people's thoughts at the time they recorded it. People have awful memories, people editorialize, change their minds. From what I've listened to MW generally defers to his writers on these commentaries, he does so several other times this ep and I've listened to all of them starting with S3. It'll often be with the implication that they wrote this scene, or had this idea in the room, and he speaks when he wrote stuff or specific lines of dialog, or had specific ideas. Normal sharing etc. Bobbie/Don is very specific because their sexual relationship begins with her forcing herself on don in the car, don saying no, her grabbing his erect dick and proceeding anyway. It's essentially CNC (consensual non-consensual) but with absolutely no safeguards (very bad obviously). My point being you shouldn't draw anything from it - it's a very specific relationship dynamic where each party forces themselves on the other sexually multiple times + the other reciprocates, and we never see either express regret about that. I do think a lot Don's relationships (Bobby mainly) steam from a desire to participate in that sort of CNC play but without any of the knowledge, terminology or understanding. If Don was in 2025 he'd be on Tumblr and Feeld and elsewhere with one hell of a profile and a lot of happy women followers. I don't really think the show criticizes women for being sexually repressed. I sort of think the opposite actually, the show more often highlights women who enjoy and desire sex (peggy, betty, joan, trudy, jane, rachel, probably more at this point im forgetting) but are stuck in a society where women are "supposed to be" demure, where you aren't supposed to have sex until marriage, where women who have lots of sex are 'nympho sluts' but men who have sex are 'just guys being guys'. The 60s is called "the sexual revolution" for a reason and while we follow mostly stuffy older white privileges characters, elsewhere as glimpsed in media, in Midge and her friends, people are becoming hippies, having open sex, forming polycules, all sorts of stuff. I think there are many more examples of this than there are of men forcing themselves on women in the show (in your two spoiler examples, the 2nd is not reciprocated and the first is a complex scene: Zrtna vf vagragvbanyyl onvgvat Qba. Vg'f na natel frk cynl, ntnva vg'f abg fhccbfrq gb or trarenyvmnoyr, vg'f irel fcrpvsvp gb gurve eryngvbafuvc naq abg fbzrguvat lbh'q rkcrpg glcvpny pbhcyrf gb or qbvat: zrtna fgevcf gb ure yvatrevr naq cynlf hc pyrnavat ba gur sybbe naq gryyf Qba gb jngpu yby vgf yvxr n xvax cynl. Ba Fgna/Crttl, Crttl qbrfa'g erpvcebpngr ng nyy naq raqf gur rapbhagre. But Mad Men is also a deeply millennial show and everything they include is reflective commentary on the time it was written - 2007 through 2015. So when the show depicts women being shamed for enjoying sex, it's not just talking about 1963, it's talking about 2009 and burgeoning conversations around 'slut shaming'. With characters like Gertrude, we have no indication she doesn't enjoy sex, she says she has a boyfriend and they likely have enjoyable fun reciprocal sex, she just doesn't want to have sex with some random older neighbour creep. Sometimes men force themselves on women and they are actually into it, lots of times they aren't, a couple times that ends in rape, even in other cases its a questionably consensual encounter, and many times the woman turns the man down and things move forward. That is 'a position' but I think it's a very realistic one and especially for the men and women writing the show from their own experiences in 2008, 2009, 2010 etc. Sometimes a person kisses you and you go "hold on a minute" and they keep kissing you and you go "actually sure". Sometimes you say no and they don't stop and you have to choose whether to escalate, if you've even capable of choosing (and not frozen from fear, drugs, alcohol etc). These days people are generally taught to seek affirmative, enthusiastic consent repeatedly during an encounter but this is quite a recent phenomenon and not everyone knows it, lots of people don't care and even well meaning parties can get drunk and have sex without being 100% sure their partners are super super into it, it's a messy complicated world and I think Mad Men generally presents that full gamut of human experiences quite well within a 1960s US cultural framing, with a few mistakes but way more successes than failures.

Zosko1

To be clear, I don't disagree with that at all. It's more the specific tone taken to explain his actions this episode

Sebastian

What tone is that? From what I can tell, everyone agrees Pete's being an absolute creep this episode, and disagrees with the commentary stating it was in any way consensual.

Zosko1

Like a redish brown