MovieChat Forums > TheMan18 > Replies
TheMan18's Replies
If men in general were far LESS violent and inclined towards violence to women, then there would be less of a need for two and 1 and 2 would indeed go together.
It also goes with saying, that when I think about men going to prison to be punished, I do NOT think prison r**e as a justified "just desserts" methods for such inmates, even if they WERE guilty of some or other form of often unforgiveable violent crime, and I have every reason to believe that this factor JUSTIFIES men or other people NOT going to prison for any circumstances.
Its a bit like - if I committed an offense and was taken to a mental hospital, I was NOT taken there so I can be beaten and abused in some or other ways, and if even threats thereof WERE there, I had and I SHOULD have every right in the world NOT to go to that place - the same should be for locking up prisoners and if people are cool with those things happening, then I consider maybe not only abolishing prisons in total but blowing up the world cause it shows there IS no GOOD in us in humanity and that human beings are totally HYPOCRITICAL as well.
Because an eye for an eye only makes the world BLIND.
The thing is, I DO indeed agree that in theory, we need laws, police and prisons to keep the dangerous and other criminals out whilst allowing to reform prisoners.
But with ways in which it often does go, it seems as if on more levels than one, it can be counter-productive as well, both to prisoners AND society so it makes one wonder about it all beyond the fact that criminals should not commit crimes in the first place.
And Pasolini's Salo also does NOT even HAVE satisfying revenge at the end, in that film, the evil doers sadly just get away with it.
Like on a related note, when in Russia on 1st March 1995 late in the evening, a popular Russian journalist and TV presenter Vladislav Listiev was shot and killed in his own apartment block, he did not have security guards on him, or a weapon he could defend himself with or even a mobile phone (though even richer Russians at the time in the 90s did not have cellular phones on them around), all of which may be considered cautionary measures that MAY have at least MINIMIZED the chance of those contract killers successfully carrying out their mission and causing a national tragedy.
And to an extent at least, those safety measures WERE discussed on TV even by his close friends, yet none of them were thought as potential victim blaming suggesting that it was therefore "his fault" or that "he should have been more careful" that he was murdered, but those safety issues were considered in a CIVILIZED manner that debated on how to prevent getting killed in Russia at the time (there was also a lot of mafia crime and contract killings in the 90s there that was a HUGE problem among other things).
Based off on that, if we debated similar prevention techniques in an EQUALLY civilized manner for potential rape victims, would than be in any way HELPFUL, if applied with thought, maturity and respect without anything even remotely resemble "victim blaming" that may be common or even UNIQUE (does victim blaming exist in OTHER areas of life?) to the crime of rape and sexual assault/violence?
On a totally different note, I have been online several times that highly criticize rape prevention tips for victims and call them victim blaming and instead turn them around on the perpetrators, but the thing is, if the person is already a violent psychopath and most of them probably know full well that rape is wrong but they're just not civilized enough to care, would those tips that say "Don't rape" all the time REALLY change anything?
And if we can somehow try and keep the victims safe by taking precautionary measures, which obviously do NOT mean rapists are in any way LESS responsible or that they should'nt do it in the first place (of course), then is it really so terrible?
I mean, if we look at murder prevention, is telling killers and potential killers "do not murder" REALLY going to change anything and stop them from murdering, and if we encouraged potential murder victims to take precautionary measures here, would that be "murder victim blaming"? (And who decides, by the way?)
Unless maybe what's not being said, besides the fact that it is indeed always the perpetrators fault and victim blaming should not happen (even though it sadly does), that from the victim's point of view (yes its never their fault I agree but that's besides point), there ARE no effective prevention techniques against rape like there MAY be with other crimes likes theft ala locking the doors, getting security alarms etc.
Because on related term, a murderer is also the one to blame. Same for a thief as well. Or a perpetrator of physical assault. Or school bullying etc.
Oh, OK, so it basically negatively affects the actresses taking part and creates a rather unfair and dominating culture of men objectifying women in that sense?
OK, so the fictional killing is fake and not so problematic, but the depictions of sex and nudity are crossing intimate boundaries more and more in cinema, and are you implying that most female actresses are required to have sex for real in the movies in order to be successful? (In that case, I CAN see it as a problem.)
And you're right its all not the same, but then you could maybe argue that murder of innocents in reality is just as bad if not worse than rape?
And killings and violence in fiction don't have the same negative effect on the audience as sexualisation and sexuality of mostly female characters?
You made some interesting points though, but I kinda think it was a little at odds with the topic that this thread was addressing - mostly, how men have a problem with this film because it shows that they can not get away with rape by having a victim exact vengeance on them, but then I was kinda thinking that not ALL men are rapists and have potential to rape. Even if most of them do, but who knows what the REAL truth about it all is?
But what about men in a sense that we see plenty of films where men are being killed and murdered and often justifiably so, is that in any way more or less a problem than the "sexual objectification of women"?
And also, are you implying that its a universally bad thing to show women in the nude or in sexual situations in movies period, and how can you really tell if its horrible and objectifying or if its a normal thing?
Come to think of it, even if all you said is true, how do you know about so much about it being "bad", "wrong" and "damaging" in and of itself, and do you think the filmmakers are AWARE of it and are doing all that kind of stuff INTENTIONALLY?
Basically, in other words, is it really that bad a thing overall and why?
And do men themselves NEVER get exploited in similar ways that cause damaging effects in cinema?
Another thing I sometimes wonder...
The fact that even though rape IS a horrible and damaging deed and is spoken of highly against by many people, we have rape cultures, victim blaming, ineffective laws or even the fact that it happens IN the first place deliberately and in large amounts throughout humanity and that there doesn't seem to be a universal cure to stop it, SO much, that we even have to find catharsis in rape and revenge movies like this (not saying its a bad thing) where we believe that the guilty men who perpetrate it deserve vengeful torture and death of the worst sort, and that even then it might be too good for them, AND THAT EVEN THEN such movies make us worried that they ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE RAPE ITSELF MORE rather than vigilante justice (which may or may not go in the right directions etc) and others...
What does this say about HUMAN NATURE in general and us people in HUMANITY, especially MEN as such?
As in, why can't we live in harmony with each other without being constantly taught and told what to do, and even then, we STILL cannot live in harmony with each other?
I also notice that the cases of sexual violence really do differ to other violence including murder in general and that in the former, it is especially difficult to effectively deal with once and for all, although people get away with murder too in reality.
2 iceskater - but do you at least think that the fact that this film features equally albeit of different kind brutal acts of revenge that succeed in having those guilty perpetrators get what they deserve, that this speaks volume of the fact that it is actually an ANTI rape film and that it kinda at least implies that men will think twice about pulling off stunts like this as in if the law DOESN'T successfully punish them, then the vengeful victim WILL?
Another thing I wonder is...
Given how you speak about rape culture, the fact that laws are deliberately ineffective etc at prosecuting rapists, the reference to Basic Instinct (but its same director Paul Verhoeven's film "Robocop" had our hero shoot a rapist in the nuts at one point) that suggests there is MORE to the problem of rape than the fact that it HAPPENS in the first place (and I gather you are only talking about America and mostly refer indeed to rapes carried out by men against women or sometimes other men rather than the world or our humanity in GENERAL), it kinda makes one wonder...
What IF and why CAN'T we have more vengeful acts of vigilante justice carried out against guilty sex offenders if the law is so lenient and ineffective and society in general doesn't give a damn?
I know we don't live in a world that's perfect or generally civilized. But sometimes one can't help but wonder - why don't we just kill rapists and be done away with them like that, and why DOESN'T law even CONSIDER going down with the civilized public's desire to eliminate them like that?
Granted, it would indeed be better if it didn't happen in the first place, I agree. But sadly it does happen and has been so throughout human history ever since, ooh, dawn of humanity for thousands of years.
I just wish we started coming more on the theories of a SOLUTION to this kind of problem since we have debated the various aspects OF this problem umpteenths of time for many years, the ignorant portions of society, bad laws aside.
Are people CORRECT in their reactions towards this type of stuff, either back there and then or now, with them being more or less offended at some or other things in movies?
Also, OK, so people are offended by the xenophobic aspects of it.
But what about the VIOLENCE and the killings and other acts of abuse contained within, that doesn't touch a nerve with people?
Even so, by no means did she deserve the terrible fate that happened to her and even if she was just killed I would've still felt bad about it.
I never ever thought that prisoners even guilty of violent crimes including murder and whatnot "deserve to be raped" in prison at all.
And if we are to condemn this crime in real life outside the bars when it happens to innocent people, there's no real reason we shouldn't feel the same about it happening inside.
To be honest, I feel rather bad but also confused at the hypocrisy of some people who condemn a universally inexcusable deed under one circumstance but condone it in another.
And that way - society demonstrates time and time again how little, basically none at all, it wants people to live in harmony with each other.
Possibly even IMPOSSIBLE too, and yes, it does have as much to do with men being different to women biologically as it does, which may be to an extent at least automatically related, with the fact that men in general are disproportionally more violent and have been than women throughout history, especially in a sexual sense.
Note - I am not saying those other things should become acceptable either, I just wanted to know what the general public both knows and thinks about those similar related issues and if they have a more definite answer as to "why".
P.S. If castration for male sex offenders really is acceptable, should we also then advocate say torture against those who tortured other people or a death sentence for murder etc? Or is there more to that method of thought besides the issues of wanting revenge? (And I don't advocate having arms cut off for thieves.)
Perhaps so but even then why is it considered acceptable as long as the sex offender is a male?
Is the main reason it would never be thought of as acceptable if it happened to a female sex offender of any kind is also due to biological differences between men and women in general (like, maybe the body structures of men and women is also different that allows castration in men if done properly to not do too much of damage beyond, especiallu if they are repeat offenders in that fashion) as well as the fact that it is men who commit it much more without too many worries and if men were in general far less violent including in sexual senses it would be deemed, even if for different reasons, just as unacceptable by the civilized people?
I find it interesting how online, practically NO ONE has even attempted to answer THAT kind of question, as in, somehow, maybe they don't have ALL the answers here or maybe they have certain fixed feelings on it all etc.
And what DOES it say about the differences between men and women in general then?
you could see that the heir did truly love the mademoiselle
Why are drug laws not only unfair but changeable? Yeah, looks like indeed there won't be any benefits to having no laws but some laws are not needed.
Well, judging by films including this one, it generally is NOT seen as "unacceptable" if the victim is a male and the fact that this DID happen in this movie, not to mention (unlike a particular category of you know what kinds of revenge films) in THIS film the male victim was actually innocent who did not allegedly even DO anything terribly wrong including to this woman that has done it to him, so at least Abe Sada did not think it was NOT acceptable and went through it anyway.
But I was also kind of curious if, besides men being dangerous and violent as both history and moderneity has shown, there is a biological component that makes it say acceptable in some cases, like for instance - when people talk about chemical castration of men that are potential sex offenders etc and why on different levels like in this movie the woman had no problem doing it based on the fact that her victim was a man.
Like, people always talk about how men are strong and also can't get pregnant etc, possibly strong also in a sexual sense too so its not considered too bad to to it to them based off on that.
Hell, I've seen some and other films where castration also happened either accidentally (but also in violent incidents) or to men who otherwise, to a bigger evident degree even than here, did not do anything too seriously wrong or related to deserve it.
In "Dobermann" (1997) a character has his penis shot off possibly even deliberately or maybe by accident in a police shootout. In "The Way of the Gun" (2000), in a shootout at the end with Ryan Philippe and Benicio del Toro, a man gets shot in a penis as well and it is seen as not much different as if he were to be shot and killed in the head or anywhere.
In "11:14" (2003) a character was shot in his penis accidentally but I wonder why they couldn't shoot him in the leg like that as well. In Paul Verhoeven's "The Fourth Man" (1983) a male character was threatened with castration by a crazy female psychopath.