Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Shock cinema, trauma porn and pointless rape.

  1. #1
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,184
    Thanks
    2,008
    Thanked 3,215 Times in 1,068 Posts

    Default Shock cinema, trauma porn and pointless rape.

    I wasn't sure where to place this because it's mostly about movies/books/series, but since the subject is rather heavy I decided to put it here in the Boiler Room. I hope that's okay.


    This morning I did read this article, which is about how directors/writers abuse rape in their movies to add nudity, shock and/or a future storyline about revenge. Often the rape is unnecessary, badly written and could be easily replaced by something else.

    Of course this article didn't open my eyes since I'm rather disturbed by the amount of abuse on my screen, but it was a nice read anyway. Sometimes I watch kid series simply because I'm tired of the horrible things in some tv series. And I often skip heavier movies so I don't have to watch some of the horrible scenes. Movies & tv series are something you watch to have a good time or because you want to see something really good and think about that afterwards. Movies and series where rape and torture are only inserted for a shocking scene fullfill neither desire.

    There are even tropes; Gratuitous Rape, Rape as Drama, Attempted Rape and another painful one we, as fantasy/sci-fi fans, see rather often; Rape Is Ok When It Is Sci-Fi. (And that trope makes it also easier for writers to use the tropes; Rape Is Ok When It Is Female On Male & Rape as Comedy.)

    Perhaps it's like swearing; a word like 'damn' was horrible some decades ago but these days you've to come with something more shocking. 'Normal drama' is not dramatic enough, it needs to be ~dark~ (<-- codeword for torture, murder, rape & other abuse). Even series with the label 'quality show' use these kind of things to add more drama.

    Worse is that it's mostly women who are raped (not that men being raped isn't bad, I hate how Angel was -almost- raped in pretty much every season since BtVS season 2 and how there is never attention for that because he is a man.), it only adds to the long list of sexism on our screens. Especially when it's portrayed as 'sexy' to hurt a woman or when it's used as excuse to show some boobage. The article I linked to mentioned how horrible it must be for an actress to be naked and play being raped in a scene only there to shock the audience, and I agree. It's not only a cheap trick, it's also mean towards your cast (because the actor who has to play the rapist isn't lucky either).

    Pointless violence, I don't like it on my screen.
    Last edited by Nina; 07-02-12 at 05:34 PM.

  2. #2
    The Dark Avenger NileQT87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Hyperion Hotel
    Posts
    1,703
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 27 Times in 20 Posts

    Default

    The stuff that really gets on my wick is the likes of True Blood or Torchwood, which tend to just be pointless nudity and sex for the sake of the shock and nothing at all to do with the drama. HBO shows are particularly notorious for this in the U.S. The channel is known for being 'gritty and adult' in the most immature way possible, so they practically seem to tell showrunners to have a certain quota of it (or that's how it seems), regardless of its necessity to the plot. Some of those shows might as well be Skinemax (heck, True Blood shows as much as after-hours cable softcore porn does). And the sci-fi/fantasy elements are mostly used as part of the titillation.

    True Blood also has that little problem of making its murderous, aristocratic vampires into civil rights heroes, which makes its heavy-handed politics completely misplaced and deeply unfortunate (all the while demonizing white Southerners as a nothing but racist hicks--probably the most disgusting regional U.S. stereotype there is).

    Misandry is rather rampant on television, but it's ignored because a lot of people (particularly of the feminist persuasion) believe that only women can be victims. You'll note that there's rather a lot of negatively portrayed and/or stupid men on television. The Lifetime movies (note that Lifetime advertises itself as a women's entertainment channel) are the worst for showing nothing but evil men and victimized women.
    Last edited by NileQT87; 07-02-12 at 04:59 PM.

    "If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."
    "Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions."

  3. #3
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Yes, I have always thought that "adult entertainment" was for people who have never grown up.

    I also think that the restrictions imposed on Hollywood movies of the 1940s and 1950s, in regard to sex and violence, made writers and directors use their imaginations to suggest and imply things. We used to call it art.

  4. #4
    Bronze Party-Goer Jessica M.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    *Burlesque Lounge*
    Posts
    165
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    Michael, I disagree with you slightly on the first part, however thank you for the second part!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Yes, I have always thought that "adult entertainment" was for people who have never grown up.
    I think it is okay for people to enjoy "adult Entertainment" if they want to. That doesn't make them immature or not grown up, it is simply what they want to watch or something different from what they normally watch, which makes it exciting or fun or whatever. If they want to, it's there personal choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I also think that the restrictions imposed on Hollywood movies of the 1940s and 1950s, in regard to sex and violence, made writers and directors use their imaginations to suggest and imply things. We used to call it art.
    I couldn't agree with you more on this one. I feel that most movies that use sex and violence full throttle are not really making a statement, the are just using there actors' nakedness or make-up department too much to tell the story. I love stories that don't actually show everything, because then it is left up to the imagination, which usually is more scary or shocking than what the director and writers have put on screen.
    If You fall off the stage legs extended and boobs up
    -Burlesque Tess(Cher)

  5. #5
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,650
    Thanks
    4,976
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 1,986 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Yes, I have always thought that "adult entertainment" was for people who have never grown up.

    I also think that the restrictions imposed on Hollywood movies of the 1940s and 1950s, in regard to sex and violence, made writers and directors use their imaginations to suggest and imply things. We used to call it art.
    So we should just bring back the censorship from the 1940s and 1950s, eh?

    There are a lot of things we could just "imagine" and imply and suggest instead of showing it. We might just "imagine" and imply an entire relationship between two people, and it might be a "better" one than the one that's actually shown. "And then they met, fell in love and got married and lived for 5 years before one of them died/war separated them etc. but you don't need to see it, we'll just tell you and imply. I'm sure your imaginations can come up with something even better than what we can show you!" Why not? Going by that logic, why show anything at all? We could just tell you a few words about the plot, and let you imagine everything else! Look, this is art!

    Art is something that's supposed to reflect human experience. And guess what? SEX is a part of that experience. So is violence. Those are big and unavoidable parts of human experience, in fact, especially sex. You know what else? Sex isn't always the same, so that "and then they had sex. We don't have to tell you anything more" is enough. People can have very different kinds of sex, and what kind of sex people have is an integral and important part of their lives and relationships. Sex scenes - done well, not just because someone wants "to get some sex in it" can be crucial for the characterization and psychology and depiction of a relationship and for producing the desired artistic effect. Scenes of violence can also be pretty crucial to what's going on. We call it art. And art is not supposed to be squeamish and primarily concerned about some people's conservative sensibilities.

    Personally, I really don't care for gratuitous sex scenes, i.e. those thrown in just so there could be some sex in the film and to appeal to the viewer. Most of the time, they aren't just unnecessary, but boring, of the "I've seen this a hundred times, thank you". And don't get me started on gratuitous violence. But there are times when sex scenes really aren't gratuitous but important and can't be left out. Ditto for violence. It all depends on the film/TV show in question.

    A few examples of excellent art films where sexually explicit (and very non-Hollywood, unconventional) sex scenes are absolutely crucial to the story:

    Intimacy by Patrice Chéreau - stirred controversy, and won the Golden Bear for Best film and Silver Bear for Best Actress at the Berlin film festival. I was actually uneasy by one sexual moment since it obviously couldn't have been simulated - I'd have preferred if they had avoided that, I'm surprised the actors (Kerry Fox and Mark Rylance, excellent and renowned actors) agreed to that, though I guess if that was OK with them, fine. But it is a really great film.
    Spoiler:
    The two main characters are having an ongoing secret sexual relationship despite not even knowing each other's names or anything about each other, using anonymous sex to escape/fulfill their empty lives. The intensity of the sex scenes is crucial in conveying their relationship and the way it leads, later on in the film, to unexpected and unwanted (?) emotional entanglement and complicates their lives.


    Lust, Caution
    by Ang Lee - a drama dressed up as a war spy thriller.
    Spoiler:
    An inexperienced, idealistic young woman working for a resistance group during World War II in Japanese-occupied China agrees to seduce a notorious collaborator as a part of the plot to assassinate him. Sex is a very important part of this story, too, and the graphic and occasionally shocking sex scenes (making, all in all, just about 100 minutes of the screentime, but making a lot of splash at the time) are necessary to convey, in their intensity and (ambiguously shifting) power balance, the dynamic and the psychological effect the relationship is having on the heroine.


    Año bisiesto (Leap Year) - dark claustrophobic Mexican drama by Australian director Michael Row. (Not to be confused with an American romcom of the same title.)
    Spoiler:
    Sex scenes are absolutely crucial for the film's story and characterization of the heroine - first, as she's picking up strangers for unsatisfying one-night stands, and especially when she starts a regular sadomasochistic relationship with a neighbor; if the sex scenes were cut out, you wouldn't even have an idea that their sexual relationship is sadomasochistic - much of the film's effect is produced by the sheer contrast between the brutality of their sex scenes [which aren't made to look Hollywood 'sexy' at all] and their interactions outside the bedroom - but this fact is crucial for understanding the main character's psychology and in fact, the climax and resolution of the film also involves sex (among other things). Can't say more without spoiling/retelling everything.
    Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 23-07-12 at 12:31 PM.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  6. #6
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,184
    Thanks
    2,008
    Thanked 3,215 Times in 1,068 Posts

    Default

    I see a huge difference between sex and violence actually and kind of fail to see why these two things have to be compared. Sex is a very normal part of life and sex usually doesn't require an aftermath. Sure pointless sex scenes are often annoying because you don't really know why you have to watch those scenes, but there is no harm. You can FF those and move on.

    But violence with as goal to shock the audience, is not harmless. It's a cheap trick to play with the emotions of the viewers and the price of that kind of storytelling is that the audience becomes immune for horrible things like 'rape', which is disturbing, and it's bad storytelling because characters move on like nothing happened after being seriously violated. If you go there and you violate a character in any way, I think a writer is obliged to deal with the aftermath.

    I'm not talking about well written violence which is impotant for the arc and where the aftermath (and/or the build up) is well taken care of. Because sadly enough it's part of this world. When I started this thread I was talking about how violence and abuse (mostly rape) is the number 1 story for a lot of drama writers and that most of these writers only care about that one scene where the violence takes place but never bother to deal with traumatized characters or any sort of realism. As long there was a shocking scene with preferable some female nudity.

    The immunity for abuse is disturbing anyway, probably the worst things I see on the internet are young girls wanting abusive boyfriends. There are sadly enough too many 'confessions' like; "Chris Brown can beat me up any day." or "I wish I had somebody loving me like Severus Snape.". Now I believe that in the end parents are responsible for raising their children and not the media. But I wonder if writers realize that 15 year olds are watching or reading their stories, where rape is downplayed and where abuse is romanticized, and getting strange ideas about love. Two of the most popular bookseries of the last decade are about a relation where the male is obviously abusive, but both Christian Grey and Edward Cullen are portayed like they are the new prince charming. And on tv Damon Salvatore is probably one of the big favorites of teenage girls, and he is even worse.

    The messages are extremely wonky these days. Now I'm not saying that everything should be flowers and butterflies. Certainly not, but I would like it when writers wouldn't downplay very important issues like rape and abuse. Because it would at least help showing the true nature of these horrible crimes to the younger audience, but mostly because it makes for better tv. Showing several characters being raped in only a couple of episodes, without any of them reacting to it, isn't good tv.
    Last edited by Nina; 23-07-12 at 03:10 PM.

  7. #7
    bewitching the mind Mara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    932
    Thanked 943 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    So we should just bring back the censorship from the 1940s and 1950s, eh?
    In my opinion when it comes to art anything should go, provided that there is a disclaimer. As much as I think no one should have the right to tell you what you should and should not depict in your art work, I do think that no one should be forced to look at your art as well if they don´t want to.

    Second thing when it comes to art I think it is important to realize that people’s perceptions change, and thank God they do I wouldn´t want to walk around now at 25 having the same ideas and opinions as I had when I was 12 (Bangel 4evah yo and if not I WILL like Never wath BtvS againnnn… yeah so glad I got over that) the same goes on a larger scale I think, Remabrands anatomy lesson was considered shocking back in his day now it is a classical artwork, Picasso´s nudes were considered weird and degrading to women in his day now it is art, Dali´s Un chien andalou is considered art and I still can not watch that razor hit that eyeball shudder.

    So when it comes to art my motto is go for it, just don´t force people to watch it and for God´s sake let people make up their own mind about it.

    Whether something is considered art is a very personal thing, for example that Dali movie while I can´t watch some parts I do see the artistic merits in it and do consider it art my mum still thinks it is useless horror stuff that she can live without having watched. That´s the beauty of art that it allows you to have these different opinions.

    So when it comes to art, no we shouldn´t go back to censorship of any kind (as long as it is consenting adults involved of course and then still there are questionable things like the cannibalistic tv show that the Dutch showed a while ago, that envolved people eating a piece of each other flesh, is that art should that be allowed I don´t know)but in the grand scheme of things when you look at it in black and white art any form of art should be allowed

    My problem is not with the artistic showing of sex and violence my problem is with the commercialisation of sex and violence, combine that with the fact that peoples perceptions changed and shocking people needs to involve growing amounts of gruesomeness and you get right to what bothers me in tv shows and films. The fact that ´sex sells´.

    Yes sometimes showing sexual scenes and violent scenes is necessary but often times it is not, often times the sole intention is either selling or shocking the audience or both. To me art, and good tv and movies are art, should be about human expression not about showing people how bold you are, look at me look at me I dare include a graphic sex scene that has no point whatsoever but it is there cause I am daring and bold…

    So when it comes to commercialisation in tv shows I would in fact sometimes like to go back to some form of censorship because sometimes, goshh often times less is more. I remember reading a post a couple of years ago can´t remember where but the person was discussing the angel episode I will remember you and they said something along the lines of God am I glad we did not actually got to see the Bangel sex because now it is left up to your imagination if you think they had sweet SarahMclaughlan love go for it if you either have hard core porn go for that. And I couldn´t agree more with this, the fact that they chose not to show the actual sex in my opinion adds more to the episode and to Bangel as a couple. Because sex in their case was such an, I don´t know I want to say defining but I kind of don´t want to say defining, let´s go with characteristic part of their relationship that to me showing that would have changed them as a couple and in their case I doubt whether that would have been a good thing. So yeah on tv sometimes less is defiantly more but it depends on the show, the episode, the scene it depends on the message.

    The problem in my opinion is not with the sex and violence the problem is that far too often the message behind the sex and violence is very shallow (showing off, making money). So more good thought trough tv on my screen please and if it involves sex and violence so be it God invented the remote control after all

  8. #8
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,152
    Thanks
    1,563
    Thanked 7,108 Times in 2,171 Posts

    Default

    When I first started watching True Blood I thought a lot of the sex scenes were gratuitous but now I think they’re a very important component of the show. That series shows everything. Whether it is blood, guts, sweat, tears, spew, sex or nudity you see it all. It’s in your face and it never holds back and I actually find that refreshing, to be honest. I actually just watched the latest episode and not only did we see a female character completely full frontal but we saw Russel Eddington feasting on a child’s corpse. You normally would never see that on television but as weird as it sounds, especially to like seeing a child dead, I respect that they have one standard for all. There are no limits. Men, women and children are all fair game. Heterosexual sex or homosexual sex (both gay and lesbian) it doesn’t matter. Male or female nudity. All different types of sex without any judgement or condemnation. We even hear everybody’s thoughts through Sookie no matter how personal or confronting they may be.

    I listened to the commentary for the pilot episode with Alan Ball and he said one of the things he wanted to avoid was that cold, sterile feeling a lot of modern vampire fiction has. So instead they went in the complete opposite direction. They purposely make the sets feel cluttered, they spray sweat on their actors to make them look sticky and hot, they include sounds of the wildlife and insects, they show the dirt and grime, vampires explode into a puddle of sticky blood and guts, it’s one of few vampire stories that show just how messy and gruesome vampire bites can be but still keeps the sexual allure, the characters say things that you can’t believe ever made it past the censors, and it has plenty of full frontal nudity. But none of it is gratuitous. It’s all very deliberate and, well, I can respect that.

    It takes a lot for me to be offended by a piece of fiction. It has to be unapologetically homophobic, sexist or racist to really upset me (and by that I mean when the text is not a commentary on those things rather just inherently bigoted) but I’m pretty unfazed by graphic sex or violence. I just roll my eyes at how silly some of it is and move on.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  9. #9
    Hellmouth Tourist
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Yet another very interesting thread. Thanks to all.

    Art in my view should be all encompassing and more. Life, fantasy...it all is open to art. I dislike censorship. Just more control freaks telling others how to live.

    My main concern regarding sex and violence is when it overshadows good story telling. So many modern films rely on action, special effects and sex to draw crowds. To me this is laziness. I'd prefer to read a book.

    The violence in Buffy and Angel was always in service to the plot. I approve of that.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to beech For This Useful Post:

    TimeTravellingBunny (02-08-12)

  11. #10
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,184
    Thanks
    2,008
    Thanked 3,215 Times in 1,068 Posts

    Default

    I agree with your post, but

    Quote Originally Posted by beech View Post
    The violence in Buffy and Angel was always in service to the plot. I approve of that.
    Is not true, at least not when you include things like (mind)rape. Probably the worst offenders of this are the episodes "Life of a Party" and "Waiting in the Wings" where characters are forced to have sex, and it's played for laughs and it's only a minor part of the story which could easily be left out or replaced. Somewhere in the Jossverse board here, is a thread with a long list with moments where Buffy is seriously violated, later on I made a long list with moments Angel is seriously violated. And I never tried, but we can probably make a same list for Cordy and Xander. Violation of mind and body is sadly a favorite plot of Whedon & co, also for comedy/light episodes. Most of these moments could easily be replaced by an idea without violating the body and/or mind of characters.

    But it's for some reason something very common for series with vampires; The Vampire Diaries and True Blood do it too and also very often.
    Last edited by Nina; 02-08-12 at 11:17 AM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Nina For This Useful Post:

    beech (02-08-12)

  13. #11
    Hellmouth Tourist
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    I appreciate your point of view. I have an opposing view. In my mind, right or wrong, the Buffyverse is dark. This darkness, forged atop a Hellmouth is all encompassing. Violation is par for the course.
    Think of it like war. The soldier on the beach at Normandy may hate that bullets are whistling by but this does not alter his circumstance.
    “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
    Aristophanes

  14. #12
    Hellmouth Tourist
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Hi again.

    My mother was raped. My two sisters were abused as children. I have serious beliefs regarding rape and male domination of females. I despise it. Happily I have always loved women. Some time ago I had a choice between careers. One was music and the other self defence. For several years I coordinated with the police force and taught anti rape classes. I estimate I helped over 300 women.
    I am in a quandry regarding the portrayal of violence in film. While I despise violence, I also reject restrictions upon art. I am an artist after all. My earlier post did not contain much information. Basically because it is hard for me to elaborate on this subject. It hurts. And yet art should be free...but what if art inspires violence.... Sadly I think violence predates speech, let alone art. The human condition. Someone should write a book!
    “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
    Aristophanes

  15. #13
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,184
    Thanks
    2,008
    Thanked 3,215 Times in 1,068 Posts

    Default

    I'm sorry to hear that about your family.

    But I fail to see how the Buffyverse being a dark place excuses the use of rape as comedy. Nor does the darkness of the Buffyverse explain why the characters never react after being violated. Even if it happens quite a lot, you would expect that characters actually feel violated after being forced to have sex or when somebody takes over their body/mind. If anything it's the writers dismissing violation as a heavy subject because they refuse to give it the weight it has. A real dark setting acknowledges rape/violation as an utterly horrible thing while the ME writers use it for laughs or random (and often light) plots.

    I can only remember four moments where characters were hurt after being violated; Buffy in Sanctuary and Seeing Red, Tara in Tabula Rasa and Wesley in Origin. Note how by example Cordelia is missing despite what happened to her in season 4, Connor whose memories of his whole life were taken from him, Xander who was almost raped by Faith, Riley who was raped by Faith or how Angel never reacts despite being raped at least 4 times on screen (often for laughs).

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Nina For This Useful Post:

    TimeTravellingBunny (02-08-12)

  17. #14
    Hellmouth Tourist
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Thanks.

    There is nothing I can add really. The series is done and it is what it is.
    “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
    Aristophanes

  18. #15
    Scooby Gang
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Devon,England
    Posts
    672
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Nobody suggested going back to the censorship of the 1940s and 1950s. However great directors like Hitchcock treated these restraints as challenges to be overcome by ingenuity. There are "near sex" scenes in Notorious(1946) and North By Northwest (1959) in which the Hays Code is respected to the letter, but which are nevertheless saturated with erotic energy.

    And the homosexual subtexts in Rope (1947) and Strangers on a Train (1951) were shown with a discrete and melancholy power which also respected the inhibitions of the age.

    I mention Hitchcock because he is currently being given a full retrospective at the British Film Institute and an international collection of film critics have just voted his Vertigo (1958) the greatest film of all time. (I don't actually agree with that verdict).

    All art involves a struggle between creative ambition on the one hand ,and the limits imposed by moral convention, or natural law, or what the punters will buy on the other. I am suspicious of shock cinema because I think, more often than not, that shock tactics are being used as a substitute for real imagination and skill. "Ambition allied to mediocre wits finds a solution in notoriety" as Oscar Wilde put it.

    Late addition 00.28 :

    Nina,

    The only censorship I would fight to the death to prevent is political censorship, because that would strike at free speech which is a central value in a democratic society.

    On further thought I believe that censorship in regard to nudity and explicit sex, including sexual violence, is not harmful at all.If we look at the legacy of world drama from Greek times and through Shakespeare and modern playrights such as Ibsen, O'Neal, Arthur Miller, Shaw, Osborne and so on ,I cannot believe that anything was lost because of the traditional restrictions on nudity and explicit sex.

    None of these great dramatists were prevented from saying anything that mattered. Nor would they have needed the present day liberalism, which is valuable only to the shock merchants I have mentioned.
    Last edited by Michael; 10-08-12 at 12:27 AM. Reason: Addional material

  19. #16
    Graveyard Patrol BuffySpike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    392
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 185 Times in 127 Posts

    Default

    How strange I came across a thing yesterday on facebook about the rape scene in Irreversible. It goes on for 10 minutes and yes it is horrific and whats worse the man proceeds to kicking the crap out of her face and slamming it into the pavement. I looked at the comments on facebook and was utterly shocked to see how many men were turned on by it. They openly said this and people were defending their right to enjoy rape scenes! They were actually telling rape victims who were complaining about the sexual comments to shut up because the movie wasnt real life it was fiction..the notion that the fictional event is based on real life events seemed to slip their minds


    God its horrific to imagine that some men do fantasize about raping women. If you enjoy watching rape it IMO does mean that you would enjoy actually doing it! I know there is a thin line between thinking and doing but to think about wanting to rape a woman and actually raping her....where is that line really drawn? Thinking it suggests something you want to do.

    I mean , would these men be happy if their sister was raped and it was caught on video and other men were jerking off to it? No they wouldnt be happy about that. It suddenly wouldnt be so "erotic" I bet. Or if they were being raped and people were getting turned on by it.

    Whats worse in some descriptions of the film the scene is described as a hardcore sex scene..no no no, its a RAPE scene! Its also apparently available to watch on various porn sites..I just don't understand it!
    Last edited by BuffySpike; 10-11-12 at 10:53 AM.
    Bonehead, carrot top, shirty & dope
    the nonsensical vocabulary of Buffy and Spike

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •