Sympathetic rape?

Whenever people say rape can't be justified I keep thinking of this guy.

Hanzo interrogates female suspects by raping them; later, he drinks sake with them in his o-furo and they immediately become infatuated with him, primarily due to his sexual dexterity.

There is a scene in Taken where the protagonist tortures a slaver by shoving nails in his thighs and electrocuting him first for information, and then to kill him (it's implied that this takes days). Apparently some editors consider that a Crowning Moment Of Funny. This makes me wonder how audiences would react if the protagonist had raped him to death instead.

I'm amused by this, from Wikipedia's Hanzo page you linked to:

Hanzo ritualistically flagellates his huge penis so as to make it stronger; this exercise is always followed up by Hanzo's practicing sexual intercourse with a bale of rice.

Um, what?

@Psycho Fre X: what about someone who rapes only rapists, to punish them by doing to them as they did to others?

edited 16th Dec '10 2:16:58 PM by Morven

I mean steamed rice must be really soothing after flagellation.

Anything, really, must be soothing after that.

I think it's because rape is a form of torture / sadism, that makes it bad, basically.

A lot of people, though, are quite fine with torture and sadism as long as the victim "deserves it". Look at the gleeful way people talk about prison rape, for instance.

Yes, true, but you just said there there are people who justify rape in prison because s/he had it coming. So its a similar premise, I think.

Rape is one of those things that is hard to do accidentally. In a fight one could murder somebody on accident and be portrayed sympathetically. For somebody to rape somebody unintentionally they would either have to be suffering from some serious cultural Values Dissonance and not know when somebody is genuinely telling them no instead of just playing along or be out of their right mind(on drugs, mind control, mental breakdown etc), suffering from something that would keep them from recognizing what they are doing.

In Dexter, I am about 99% sure that the titular character isn't murdering someone on accident at the end of every episode. He is still a sympathetic character.

As I've said before, murder and many other crimes can be sympathetic too. I just don't think the same for rape.

In fact, I think rape may just be the one crime that can never be sympathetic.

edited 16th Dec '10 2:29:49 PM by PsychoFreaX

Yes but what is more sympathetic - a person with a twisted psyche who goes out and rapes/murders certain people or a normal person who made a horrible mistake and feels bad about it afterwards?

Of course the guy who regrets it is more sypmathetic. But the question isn't comparing who gets more sympathy. It's a question of if the more extreme can get sympathy at all.

I suppose with sufficient Cry for the Devil in the story the headcase rapist could be sympathetic. You would just have to show that given their personality and backstory they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing or couldn't have turned out any other way.

I would think its the sadism/enjoyment that comes from rape/torture that might make it so detestable.

Torture can actually be sympathetic too, a lot more than rape can. For example, as revenge where you feel death is too easy for them and you enjoy it because you hate them.

Rape however, is much more than just causing cuts, burns or bruises though.

It's been pointed out though that you can torture someone, completely on purpose, enjoy it, and have it portrayed as a good thing.

^ What about electrocuting someone to death for days? Burning to death?

edited 16th Dec '10 2:40:12 PM by melloncollie

@Frea X: Bull shit. Then rape as revenge would be suitable as well.

Well I was meant to be implying all kinds of physical pain. But there are too much to name .

Then what about mental torture?

Rape is physical pain (+ mental pain). Isn't that what torture is?

Yeah pretty much. That's why I'm saying rape is a form of torture, and in the same line as that. Torture is just as bad as rape, and vice versa. People who got waterboarded voluntary (for social perspective!) still have nightmares over it. There is not much of a difference between the two, except social acceptance of one and not the other.

edited 16th Dec '10 2:54:46 PM by MrAHR

Wait second thoughts on this comment. I might need time to think.

edited 16th Dec '10 2:54:13 PM by PsychoFreaX

It's because rape is injuring someone's innate human dignity and worth. It means that you want to bring them as low as you possibly can, you want to get at the most intimate things about them. There are some things about human beings that people view as inviolate, and this is one of them.

Are you disagreeing with me or agreeing with me?

Disagreeing. I think there is a difference between them apart from how society views it. Just trying to describe what that difference is.

It's because rape is injuring someone's innate human dignity and worth.

Does this mean anything, other than fluffy buzzwords?

If you mean "it messes with their mind", torture generally does that as well.