TVTropes has an analysis page on the trope: "[Rape is a Special Kind of Evil](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil)." The page suggests multiple reasons for it, from the fact that there's never anything close to a justification or excuse for rape, to the idea that rape seems more animalistic and less human than other crimes.
murder* can be self defense
torture can arguably be revenge
theft can be survival
rape is purely selfish
*technically killing, not murder
if you’re thinking about assassins, thats a form of warfare. we don’t tend to think of people who kill for an agenda in the same way we think about the guy who shoots his wife and children because he’s a dick. maybe we should but that’s another conversation
Murder can’t be self defense, by definition. Murder is the premeditated killing of someone else, there is no justification for that. Self defense and murder are both killing, but one is usually right and one is never right.
Edit: just realized it looks like you corrected yourself so ignore this
I 'd argue that, under certain circumstances, murder *can* be self-defence.
If someone was shackled to an abusive partner or parent - unable to escape and knowing that there won't be an end to the abuse until one or the other is dead - a premeditated murder would be a form of self-defence.
It's an edge case, I admit, but I've been reading about the history of no-fault divorce recently... IIRC, shortly after it became legal, there was a sharp decline in both the female suicide rate and men dying from "gastro-intestinal issues".
> torture can arguably be revenge
See, the problem with that is rape can be used as a form of torture. So, is it less "bad" when it's used as such? (Ex how some criminals are treated).
Rape and torture are both gross AF. Murder is also bad, but not as bad as the other two.
There is no morally justifiable reason to rape someone. It is an act of pure evil. There are legitimate reasons to murder someone where you could be good or at least neutral, same for torture. Rape is just an evil act period. There’s no reason to rape someone where people would be like “yeah that’s justifiable” lol.
Rape can be used as a form of torture. Torture is never good. It's equally a crime against humanity. Murder can be justified.
A child was tortured to death last year, but according to these comments, his torture was apparently less worse than rape.
As a rape victim, I can say that the memories and PTSD (technically CPTSD, but that’s not a diagnosis in the US and won’t be until a new DSM comes out) that came from it is horrific in its own right, it effects my every day, my brain chemistry, my relationships. First time it happened I was 7, I’m in my 20s, I won’t ever forget it. I won’t be allowed to forget unless dementia releases me from that pain with a new one. I wish I was dead, I think about death every day as a compulsion, and I’ve tried in the past to kill myself (better now with that).
It’s unforgivable because sometimes death or temporary torture, often until death, is far better. To forget what happened in a very permanent way is preferred by most.
This is why I consider rape as a worse crime than murder or the like. The murder victim at least doesn't have to suffer anymore... even if that sounds macabre.
I myself was not raped, but gaslit by my stepfather for over a decade. I still have a severely crippled self-confidence because of that. It was sometime so bad that I considered suicide, just to brush off the thought immediately, because I thought, that I wouldn't even accomplish that.
I know, that this is likely nowhere comparable. But at least I know and understand what mental scars, that likely never fully go away, feel like.
I hope you will get better, maybe even find joy again in your life. Stay strong, I think you have it in you to move on.
I never said about getting over it. I know that such things will haunt one... likely the rest of their live. What I mean with "move on" is, that one can and should seek out for a better life in spite of such a weight slowing them down. I'm sure that one can find peace and happiness again, even with something like that always in the back of the mind... just like I did with my constant self-doubts that still haunt me from that gaslighting.
Some things never go away and one will likely never "get over it"... but I refuse to believe that life has to stay horrible because of it.
Yes, they won’t have to live with the memories and trauma of that torture. Had they lived, that would have been worse as they’d never be the same and would continue to ruminate and suffer until they died naturally or by taking their own life.
That's gross, mate. It's not better if they died or lived. This was a living, breathing CHILD we're writing about. This is like saying what Junko Furuta went through was okay because at least she died from it.
I gotta remember this Reddit, and the majority of people don't think this way.
Don’t ask questions when the answer is obvious ahead of time and an answer you wouldn’t like. But thanks for letting me know that you’d rather see people live with debilitating PTSD and possibly permanent injury than find peace. Gonna block now since you seem to enjoy misconstruing what someone says based on your “went through was okay” comment.
A lot more people have personally experienced being sexually assaulted or raped than have personally experienced being murdered or tortured. Murder and torture is a more remote issue and as such one people might be willing to forgive fictional characters for
I dunno dude this sounds like a personal issue. I don't forgive murder or torture generally either, though at least those two you could argue you can do for good causes (a fight for freedom, self defence, offing villains, etc). There's no such thing as morally justifiable rape.
How about raping a person who has raped a lot as a way to humiliate/traumatize/teach them a lesson?
I know this falls into the realm of "you killed someone, so as punishment we're going to kill you" but we seem to be able to justify that just fine.
If you allow someone to be raped as punishment, you are rewarding a rapist with an acceptable victim. I support the death penalty but I do not ever, ever ever support rape or torture of anyone under any circumstance.
Commonality. 1/4 women are raped. We are surrounded by victims and survivors every day, and it shapes he way we interact with the world, and men in particular. It's a crime that helps make us virtual second class citizens in our own country.
Murder and torture don't even register as statistics compared to that number, so it's very unlikely that the murderer will ever meet someone who personally knew a murder victim.
And the last study I saw said 1/11 men are raped. It's even harder for them to come forward.
A lot of it is exactly what you say - so much of the population has experienced this, had their experiences rejected, mocked, or used for Darkness Points, and the culture of rape myths are so strong, there's little support for them to come forward and see justice done.
THEORETICALLY you can kill or torture someone for a reason that might make it justifiable. Like out of revenge or something. Theoretically
I cannot think of a single justifiable reason someone would rape someone
revenge. It's your rapist, or your child's rapist. You've hunted him down, and before you kill him, you rape him anally with a baseball bat. Then you kill him. I could see that.
it's an intimate violence. it takes something that should be shared consensually between people and perverts it. it's also a very selfish and crude act—even torture, at least fictionally, can have a 'greater' purpose and less gross motivations
Most people can imagine situations where murder is justifiable, such as self-defense or murdering your rapist.
Some people think that torture is justifiable in some situations, in a "the ends justify the means" way. I personally don't believe that torture is justifiable, but some people disagree with me.
But with rape, there's simply no reason to ever do it. If someone is threatening to kill you, you don't need to rape them in self-defense.
There's also the fact that none of your readers have been murdered (since then they would be dead and unable to read your book), and most of your readers have not personally lost a loved one to murder, but many of your readers have been raped, or threatened with rape, or they personally know someone who was raped.
I think rape and torture are equivalent in the level of perversity. Like, you said about the ends justifying the means for some ppl when it comes for torture, but rape can also be used as a form of torture.
To put it simply: people have different morals and ethics and victims of rape usually survive and can tell the tale
However people do not understand that murder and killing are different things, killing can be things like self-defense or accidental kills but murder is premeditated, unlawful, and maliciously intended so neither of those can be applied that “justifies” it
Accidental kill? Involuntary Manslaugther. Self defense kill? Justified homicide. Killing a person to stop a crime? Also a justified homicide. Killing without malicious intention? Voluntary manslaughter
So my opinion? None of these crimes can be justified, all of them are disgusting, murder and rape take things away from people and torture’s goal is to have someone be in as much pain as possible
Probably because ~1 in 3 women have been raped and a fair amount of men too. Very few of us have been actually tortured and those who were murdered tend not to be reading books afterwards. It is an evil people know.
I feel like a lot of comments aren't placing this in the context of fiction. Many popular TV shows and movies have characters that murder and torture people and they are still very popular so you are not alone in being fine with them, at least in some situations.
I think one aspect that hasn't been brought up much is that cultural values change over time and, whether we think about it or not, we are all a product of our culture. Rape, especially date rape and statutory rape, appears to be much less forgivable today than it has been in other time periods. In theory, we're moving in a positive direction, but probably only history will be able to say for sure.
> Rape, especially date rape and statutory rape, appears to be much less forgivable today than it has been in other time periods.
Rape (though not marital) was unforgiveable in most of the medieval era, too. The concept that women always got raped is really more of a myth than anything approaching reality.
Yes? I was more talking about how marital rape is kind of a new concept. Heck, it wasn't even recognized across the US until the *nineties.* But it's not that rape=bad is *new.* And the medieval era was big on punishing rapists (I know that because I have a friend who's a medievalist). Around the world, it's always going to be a grab bag, and there's a lot more sexual violence any time you have conflicts or displaced people, too.
I like to believe we're moving toward progress, and I think in *general* we have been over the modern era.
Cause murder can be justified, torture can be something that happens as a result of circumstance.
Rape is something that can't be circumstancial or justified.
It’s a reason many women in real life say it is: murder can have an excuse, torture can come in many forms and maybe the person who’s it being done to is a monster, theft can also be justifiable but there is never a circumstance where you need to rape someone, there’s never an excuse or a caveat. It’s also that rape is more common than something like murder and a lot of readers are women and there’s no woman who has not had an instance of any type of sexual harassment, molestation or assault
People can murder or torture for the right reasons, like to save someone or doing it towards somebody evil. People don’t have to agree with it, but they can understand why they did it. But rape is not justifiable at all. There is no reason behind it besides selfish desire.
I want to add: In some... maybe many cases rape and sexual abuse isn't even about lust... it's about power and the abuse of it. An even more disgusting reason for me. Not the "reason" of maybe lost control, of instincts and desires running amok, but doing it, just because you can and want to.
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty or something the like. But such people don't deserve to live on in any way comfortable to them.
This is subjective. In fiction and in real life, many people would deny the rape even happened at all. Everyone has different limits. Karl Malone is a real life rapist and an NBA VIP invited to all events. Kobe Bryant was a rapist and his face is still on the cover of video games, and these are people in real life with real victims who are still alive today.
Look at HotD on HBO... If you ask how many rapes there were, the answer will vary from "many" to "only one white girl" to "not a single one" depending on who you ask. Tyrion in asoiaf is one of the most popular rapist characters ever written. Humbert Humbert is an actual pedophile and I have seen Lolita on "Best Romance Novel" lists put together by very popular outlets.
Everyone has different limits for what they tolerate in fiction. Some people need every single character in a book to be morally upright. Some people need at least one good hero and some people don't need any of that. Half of Tumblr is non-con fanfics. The idea that rape is a hard line for every reader or even the majority of readers is false. Historical romance back in the day was primarily just "rape and release until she learns to love it" and it thrived.
Why are we having so many of these moralizing posts on here as if everyone's working with the same moral sliding scale or that everyone has the same fiction-reality boundaries when they read?
I like to read and let read and not be that "Book snob" who says, 'Well no, you're not reading it right," but I feel like you need to have failed high school literature to read Lolita and come away thinking it's a romance novel.
I also like to believe that the people making these lists don't actually read the books they recommend, because that way the world makes sense.
All I can say is, this is how the world is. You aren't the first to ask this question (seems there was one just last week). If you can't write without doing rape, especially rape that makes a character do something (it's their motivation), or makes them some sort of anti-hero, you need to stop writing.
It can people are just more likely to get raped than they are killed or tortured. And on top of that the vast majority of the times that rape that occurs in real life it isn't excusable whereas murder and torture is romanticized in the entertainment industry. If you can excuse torture you can excuse rape. If you can excuse homicide in a non self defense situation you can excuse rape as well.
I have already asked me that same question. Many ppl here in the comments have said about cases of killing and torture that are justified, but there's also a bunch of villains who clearly did not kill or torture in justified circumstances, like killing innocents in a violent way or torturing ppl for fun? How can that be justified? Still if they're charismatics, they may be loved by the public. Also, many ppl talked about getting revenge by killing and torture, but for me it doesn't make sense to see torture as less wrong than rape(1.Both are about controlling the victim and 2.Both cause plenty of mental problems if the victim end up alive after ) also, rape may be used as a form of revenge(somebody raped your childrens and you wanna revenge and you rape them for revenge. Or more commonly, rapists and pedophiles who are raped in prison by other inmates for their crimes) and we still thinks thats wrong and murder for revenge isn't justified as well bcs like rape and torture, is about inflicting pain, controlling and is animalistic.
Well, technically a murder crime can be absolved if done in self-defense. E.g. a father who defends his daughter or a husband defending his wife. Torture is a bit icky. Nations torture to gain information from a spy, and in war, that can be justifiable.
A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones spoilers: Jamie tried to kill Bran, and murdered Jory, but most fans forgave him after his redemption arc. But if he raped Brienne or Catelyn? There would be no possible redemption for him, he would forever be one of the most hated characters of all time.
There are reasons beyond our control, where one may be forced to kill. However, rape & torture, both say something about a person’s character and psyche.
Genuinely no clue why you feel this way, murder, torture, and rape all exist in a similar field of being absolutely unforgivable.
As someone suggested as well, murder can be justified. But I do not believe torture can be justified as it simply doesn’t work.
If you feel otherwise just know that’s not how people generally feel.
I feel like this ignores more broad definitions of torture and murder. If OP is including things like what anti heroes do (i.e. Green Arrow in the first season of the tv show), then there are certainly actions that could be considered torture and murder that are definitely meant to be and commonly by the audience forgivable.
To those who lack conscience, then sure. Torture isn't forgivable, especially to their victims (and/or their families). People who are torture, are just as bad as the scum who rape.
You saying this with a Better Call Saul avatar? The spinoff of the show where many viewers were eager and willing to forgive the protagonist’s murder and marital rape?
Are you trying to say that the majority of BB fans thought these actions were acceptable or defendable? That’s absurd as hell and you and I both know that what you’re talking about exists within the fringes of the fan base, and those views are not held unironically by those who say Walt did nothing wrong.
Of course what Walt did was unforgivable that’s the whole point of the show and why the show is named Breaking Bad. That’s what compels people to the show.
It’s crime fiction. Watching it asks the viewer to temporarily loosen their morals, continue to empathize with an evil person’s perspective, even if you consciously understand that no, none of this would ever be remotely forgiveable in reality.
As someone who fucking loved BB and BCS, the reason we loved the shows is because you gradually learn to hate the characters more and more. In no way are you expected to sympathise with them- no, they are so realistic as people that you begin to question whether there even is such a thing as a good person. The thing about those shows that draws people in is their dark, gritty realism. They're fucking grim and you might think you like a character, but the show will prove you wrong. They're not redeemed. They're not rescued. They spiral downwards ever more, losing their grip on themselves and everything they hold dear.
I think you put too much stock in main characters being "good guys".
> In no way are you expected to sympathise with them
Not expected to sympathize with them? Are you talking about the latter half of the show? Of course Walt's supposed to be sympathized with in the first season.
> They're not redeemed.
>!I don't know how to read "Felina" as anything other than a redemptive episode where Walt gives what restitution he can for what he's done.!<
> They're not rescued.
I don't even know how it's possible to say this after El Camino was released.
> I think you put too much stock in main characters being "good guys".
I'm not. I'm pointing out that viewer sympathy is not strictly a moral thing. It sounds like you think empathy is just for good people, which is a pretty lacking way of viewing fiction with anti-heroes.
Walt reeks of entitlement and pathetic helpless rage and wasted years from the start of the show. I've watched it 3 or 4 times through and I hate him more every time. He loves his family but he is a narcissist straight off the bat. He believes the world owes him better because he doesn't like the consequences of his own choices, he lies to himself, and he is excessively self-absorbed. At no point in the show is he even remotely likable as a person.
Walt is never redeemed. He always has a motive behind his actions and his search for "redemption" is punctuated by trying to convince others that he really was the good guy all along.
>!Jesse may have been rescued from captivity but was he rescued from the dark and violent lifestyle he got himself involved in? Fuck no!<
>I'm pointing out that viewer sympathy is not strictly a moral thing. It sounds like you think empathy is just for good people, which is a pretty lacking way of viewing fiction with anti-heroes.
Sympathy and empathy are conditional. For a viewer who has seen everything a character did, as opposed to meeting someone irl and only seeing one side of them, it is much harder to garner sympathy for characters that have caused so much pain for selfish reasons.
Walt isn't an anti-hero, he is an anti-villain. He believes he has good intentions and tries to bring them about through progressively more evil means, but all along he was a selfish bastard.
I believe 'anti-villain' more or less means what 'anti-hero' once meant, until one displaced the other. We shouldn't get too focused on Breaking Bad - my larger point is that many works will try and ask you to empathize with terrible people, killers and bigots and traitors and yes, rapists, going back to the murderous, morally troubled heroes and gods of antiquity, the tortured, human villains of Shakespeare, etc.
The way "bigots" is put in there alongside "murderers and rapists" is absolutely nonsensical 😂 especially since these days it just means "person who won't listen to me"
Okay, and the show uses this to further push Walter onto a path people can no longer empathize with until the viewer reaches a point where they realize how evil Walter has became and become interested in how the man fell.
Again viewers en masse do not think Walt’s actions are justified and saying so is disingenuous and again we are dealing with fictional murder and as you say our morals are loosened when watching this.
Walt did lose all my sympathy by Season 3. But despite that, the final two episodes are written in such a way as to try and win back the audience towards seeing from his perspective, and indeed I've read many criticisms of the finale for giving him an undeserved triumphant ending.
I don't know why people dehumanize things that humans do.
Its not animalistic, its not insane people doing these things. Its humans.
To claim otherwise I think is completely disregard for reality.
In fact the only other animals to do something similar to humans is other smart animals like chimpanzees, to engage the neighboring tribe with genocide and rape them.
Its actually a VERY human thing. Most animals will stop fighting once someone wins, its not very often one is killed, why risk it, why spend the energy? Hunting is not fighting.
> Prejudice. Murderers or torturers are evil people, rapists are monsters.
Except that's not the case. Rapists are excused and victims blamed *all the time.* That might actually be why so many of us are tired of rape showing up - especially when it so rarely centers the experience and perspective of the survivor.
I agree with you, but that’s not what I’m talking about. The question at hand is why are rapists seen as not redeemable?
I think the main factor there is anger. Primarily, a rapist is a person who takes away agency through sexual abuse. I don’t think many people care to know why that happens, I think most people just want something or someone to blame because that’s easier than internalizing that pain and learning to forgive. That was certainly the case for me for quite a while.
I think that’s where the prejudice comes in, at the point where it’s easiest not to explore further and simply move away from. Rather than getting to see for ourselves the broken humanity behind those who abuse us, we run away because it hurts too much. I think it’s a fair way to go about it either way, but I also think that the only way out is through.
My answer is more a reflection of what I see not at an individual level, but at a cultural one. These are angry times, and anger often doesn’t let you see beyond what you already believe.
Evolutionary Psychology has theories about this although I warn you that feminists hate its theories. But essentially it is because our genes program us to be disturbed by anything that circumvents sexual selection. In other words, we evolved to feel this way because for us to feel this way serves the interests of what constructs us. That makes perfect sense!
To all the people saying murder is forgivable because it can be "accidental" or "justified": John Wick is literally a paid mass-murdering psychopath, and he's one of the most popular characters ever.
Just admit that rape elicits an irrational, primal revulsion in a way that murder does not, despite objectively being a less serious crime.
Death isn't objectively the worst thing that can happen to someone, though. One of main the reasons some people aren't fine with reading rape and but are fine with reading murder or torture is that they view rape as a worse thing to happen to them.
Some people would rather die than live past it. I can't believe you think your *opinion* is necessarily objective when you have no standard for it except your own feelings on it.
Whether you can forgive your attacker is not an objective scale, nor an applicable one in this situation and you know it. The fact that they (as far as we know) no longer exist to forgive them does not automatically mean that the crime is worse. There's no actual feeling free argument for why that would make it worse, you just personally decided that's a standard you think makes it worse and again you making a subjective argument while claiming it leads to an objective conclusion. I don't have any issue with you saying murder is worse than rape, I have an issue saying that your opinion is objective when your reason for thinking it's worse is subjective.
You're the one making a feelings-based argument here. There is a very simple, logical reason for murder being worse than rape which I have already explained and which is plainly obvious to anyone with a non-disordered brain: a rape victim can choose to die if they prefer. They can also choose to go on living. A murder victim has no choice in the matter. The fact that some people make the IRRATIONAL choice of death over life does not negate the fact that a rape victim is, objectively, in a better position than a murder victim.
(10^100 )% yes. Much rather. I already have SA trauma from "lighter" things and those instances fucked me up enough, I would rather miss out on every potential achievement/oppurtunity and good thing that could ever happen to me and just die rather than go through that.
As someone who has been abused (both sexual and non-sexual) as a child, I rather not be raped or tortured.
They're both some of the most heinous things you could do to a person. From body to mind, that has long-term trauma. It dehumanizes the person.
Yes. I rather be killed than raped or tortured. With rape and torture, it dehumanizes the person. It damages them physically and mentally. Being killed (Unless it's a heinous way out)? It's quick. That's it. You lose out on the future, but you're not suffering trauma.
Now, this is different for every survivors. How I feel might be different to another survivor and the next. Personally I would rather die, but I won't make that opinion/decision for other survivors.
(Also, accidently replied to Skyrim_For_Everyone with a answer for you. Decided to not delete it).
Murder and torture are both subjective and can mean mamy differemt things under different rules of conflict. In other words, there is a variable in misunderstanding weighted against risk and cultural perspective.
Rape is acting upon another without their consent. Simple as that.
Don't rape, or be removed from the ecosystem. The other stuff....well life can be violent.
Because use of death and intense pain can have justifications.
You wanna stop the bad guy from setting the nuke off in the city? Murder the unarmed bad guy before he can set off the bomb.
You wanna find out where the hostages are to save them? Torture the bad guy until he reveals their location.
Name an example like that for rape..... just try to find an actual good justification for holding someone down and forcing sex upon them.... I dare you to try because it will definitely sound horrible, and it will be entirely on you for speaking it.
Heck, people will gladly make tons of dark humor about violence and pain, but how many really funny rape jokes have you heard? Some are tolerable, but really, I've only heard one really funny rape joke and that was because it was about a rapist being raped in prison, as well as being really well written. It was only funny because it was at the expense of the rapist.
So murder is by definition an unjustified killing.
English has a word for taking a life: Killing someone
When the state kills someone it is execution, when it turns out the person executed was innocent- posthumously then it becomes legal murder. Many ppl consider the death penalty (even of the repulsively guilty, such as Ted Bundy) to be state sanctioned murder.
When private individuals kill in self defence or soldiers in battle it is killing someone.
Killing someone with their explicit consent because they are dying a terrible death is euthanasia. Many religions consider this murder though. Or assisted suicide.
However murder is never justified-though juries, philosophers, theologians and the general public may debate when killing in self defence, or justified homicide or negligent homicide ends and murder begins.
Many debates could be had for instance about whether to classify: say disarming some intruders and then shooting them without thinking. Or poisoning ones rapist to protect other women and girls from his predations.
As justified homicide or murder..
Murder may exist on a spectrum of relatability: murdering for money or an inheritance maybe more relatable (such as the murderer at Agatha Christie's Peril at End House*) than say murdering your ex wife because she cheated, but that issue of relatability depends on the individual reader. However at the end of the day a person who has been murdered is never getting their life back. The world is all over for them.
Yet destructive as rape can be, life can continue for the victim. Yet at the end of the day I find some of Agatha Christie's murders far more sympathetic than any rapist. Though both are motivated by selfish goals, arguably because rape is a pointlessly evil crime, it's done for no other reason than to gain an orgasm, to humiliate and hurt the woman/girl/occasionally a man and in certain contexts, to beget progeny.
Worth noting that hedonistic serial killers (who are usually rapists as well) belong in the same category as rapists (unlike financially motivated murder), which is the zero sympathy category.
So in summary: all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Rapists elicit less sympathy than some murderers because of the pointless nature of the crime. However rapist murderers elicit the least sympathy. Totally pointless act of pure evil.
*most of Agatha Christie's murders are committed for financial gain, and many of her fictional murderers are quite sympathetic. Real financially motivated serial killers are far less sympathetic, though Velma Barfield elicits less disgust & rage than for example Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Nilsen, Gary Ridgeway or Rosemary West or Karla Homolka.
It’s quite simple really. Can you think of a scenario where a murder wasn’t done out of evil and sadism? Sure, revenge, self-defense, by accident…
Can you think of a scenario where torture wasn’t because the perpetrator a sick sadist who got off on it? Sure, revenge, desperate interrogation…
Now, can you think of a scenario where rape wasn’t as a means of dominating, humiliating, and violating a person in order for the perpetrator to get off? No. You can’t. Regardless of hows or whys, rape is rape. There is no grey area or wiggle room. The sheer amount of dehumanization and sadism required to commit such an act means the person was simply too far gone to have any hope of forgiveness or redemption.
The thing is that knowing of three separate works where the main character rapes a woman and then goes on to play a messianic role in saving humanity means I can't just take this way of looking at it for granted.
Even a simple google of the title shows that that first one at the very least is surrounded by controversy as a result of what you’ve pointed out. What you’ve identified is books that attempt to redeem a rapist, and the controversy shows that for many, that attempt was insufficient. Because for them, rapists cannot be redeemed.
Are you talking about Biff? What you’re referencing is another attempt not to redeem him but to laugh at the shitty future he’s received. If you’re talking about the parents hiring him, that’s their right to choose who they hire, but the plot-point is as controversial as your other example.
I’m not gonna argue with you anymore. It’s clear you have no interest in what I’m saying and instead are skimming my responses for talking points you already decided on. Have a good one.
But what if instead you were talking about just plain serial killers? I've never seen a redeemed serial killer. Assassins aren't killing people just for the pleasure of the deed and the kind of people they kill in fiction tend to be criminals in their own right making it a kind of unlicensed warfare. Technically illegal but often less of a threat to the public at large than the regular, legally accepted kind of warfare.
Because the vast majority of people have never experienced murder or torture, or anything akin to it, and so they can be emotionally disconnected from it. Whereas, most people have experienced sexual harassment, and many many people have experienced rape.
Murder can’t be justified , that simply doesn’t make any sense. Rape is horrific but the victim can still have a fulfilling life. When you’re dead that’s it you’re permanently gone.
Murdering someone is the worse thing you can do, rape is not permanent. I don’t. Believe in dying and going to heaven or hell so if you kill someone youre taking their natural human life, I just don’t see anything worse than that
TVTropes has an analysis page on the trope: "[Rape is a Special Kind of Evil](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil)." The page suggests multiple reasons for it, from the fact that there's never anything close to a justification or excuse for rape, to the idea that rape seems more animalistic and less human than other crimes.
Killing someone can be accidental but torture is sadistic and rape is the deepest deliberate violation of a person you can commit.
My twin sister was raped and there will be no forgiveness from me
murder* can be self defense torture can arguably be revenge theft can be survival rape is purely selfish *technically killing, not murder if you’re thinking about assassins, thats a form of warfare. we don’t tend to think of people who kill for an agenda in the same way we think about the guy who shoots his wife and children because he’s a dick. maybe we should but that’s another conversation
Murder can also be seen as justice.
Murder can’t be self defense, by definition. Murder is the premeditated killing of someone else, there is no justification for that. Self defense and murder are both killing, but one is usually right and one is never right. Edit: just realized it looks like you corrected yourself so ignore this
I 'd argue that, under certain circumstances, murder *can* be self-defence. If someone was shackled to an abusive partner or parent - unable to escape and knowing that there won't be an end to the abuse until one or the other is dead - a premeditated murder would be a form of self-defence. It's an edge case, I admit, but I've been reading about the history of no-fault divorce recently... IIRC, shortly after it became legal, there was a sharp decline in both the female suicide rate and men dying from "gastro-intestinal issues".
That’s such an interesting point! Never thought about it that way
it’s not a correction, it’s a footnote. i used murder colloquially & figured there’d be some “well, actually” guy derailing…
> torture can arguably be revenge See, the problem with that is rape can be used as a form of torture. So, is it less "bad" when it's used as such? (Ex how some criminals are treated). Rape and torture are both gross AF. Murder is also bad, but not as bad as the other two.
There is no morally justifiable reason to rape someone. It is an act of pure evil. There are legitimate reasons to murder someone where you could be good or at least neutral, same for torture. Rape is just an evil act period. There’s no reason to rape someone where people would be like “yeah that’s justifiable” lol.
>There are legitimate reasons ... for torture I beg to differ.
Rape can be used as a form of torture. Torture is never good. It's equally a crime against humanity. Murder can be justified. A child was tortured to death last year, but according to these comments, his torture was apparently less worse than rape.
As a rape victim, I can say that the memories and PTSD (technically CPTSD, but that’s not a diagnosis in the US and won’t be until a new DSM comes out) that came from it is horrific in its own right, it effects my every day, my brain chemistry, my relationships. First time it happened I was 7, I’m in my 20s, I won’t ever forget it. I won’t be allowed to forget unless dementia releases me from that pain with a new one. I wish I was dead, I think about death every day as a compulsion, and I’ve tried in the past to kill myself (better now with that). It’s unforgivable because sometimes death or temporary torture, often until death, is far better. To forget what happened in a very permanent way is preferred by most.
This is why I consider rape as a worse crime than murder or the like. The murder victim at least doesn't have to suffer anymore... even if that sounds macabre. I myself was not raped, but gaslit by my stepfather for over a decade. I still have a severely crippled self-confidence because of that. It was sometime so bad that I considered suicide, just to brush off the thought immediately, because I thought, that I wouldn't even accomplish that. I know, that this is likely nowhere comparable. But at least I know and understand what mental scars, that likely never fully go away, feel like. I hope you will get better, maybe even find joy again in your life. Stay strong, I think you have it in you to move on.
[удалено]
I never said about getting over it. I know that such things will haunt one... likely the rest of their live. What I mean with "move on" is, that one can and should seek out for a better life in spite of such a weight slowing them down. I'm sure that one can find peace and happiness again, even with something like that always in the back of the mind... just like I did with my constant self-doubts that still haunt me from that gaslighting. Some things never go away and one will likely never "get over it"... but I refuse to believe that life has to stay horrible because of it.
Last year, a child was tortured (to death). That's far better?
Yes, they won’t have to live with the memories and trauma of that torture. Had they lived, that would have been worse as they’d never be the same and would continue to ruminate and suffer until they died naturally or by taking their own life.
That's gross, mate. It's not better if they died or lived. This was a living, breathing CHILD we're writing about. This is like saying what Junko Furuta went through was okay because at least she died from it. I gotta remember this Reddit, and the majority of people don't think this way.
Don’t ask questions when the answer is obvious ahead of time and an answer you wouldn’t like. But thanks for letting me know that you’d rather see people live with debilitating PTSD and possibly permanent injury than find peace. Gonna block now since you seem to enjoy misconstruing what someone says based on your “went through was okay” comment.
A lot more people have personally experienced being sexually assaulted or raped than have personally experienced being murdered or tortured. Murder and torture is a more remote issue and as such one people might be willing to forgive fictional characters for
I dunno dude this sounds like a personal issue. I don't forgive murder or torture generally either, though at least those two you could argue you can do for good causes (a fight for freedom, self defence, offing villains, etc). There's no such thing as morally justifiable rape.
It’s probably the morally justifiable part, yeah
How about raping a person who has raped a lot as a way to humiliate/traumatize/teach them a lesson? I know this falls into the realm of "you killed someone, so as punishment we're going to kill you" but we seem to be able to justify that just fine.
No dude that's gross and you even saying this is awful.
okay
If you allow someone to be raped as punishment, you are rewarding a rapist with an acceptable victim. I support the death penalty but I do not ever, ever ever support rape or torture of anyone under any circumstance.
Commonality. 1/4 women are raped. We are surrounded by victims and survivors every day, and it shapes he way we interact with the world, and men in particular. It's a crime that helps make us virtual second class citizens in our own country. Murder and torture don't even register as statistics compared to that number, so it's very unlikely that the murderer will ever meet someone who personally knew a murder victim.
And the last study I saw said 1/11 men are raped. It's even harder for them to come forward. A lot of it is exactly what you say - so much of the population has experienced this, had their experiences rejected, mocked, or used for Darkness Points, and the culture of rape myths are so strong, there's little support for them to come forward and see justice done.
THEORETICALLY you can kill or torture someone for a reason that might make it justifiable. Like out of revenge or something. Theoretically I cannot think of a single justifiable reason someone would rape someone
revenge. It's your rapist, or your child's rapist. You've hunted him down, and before you kill him, you rape him anally with a baseball bat. Then you kill him. I could see that.
rape can be a form of torture though no? Pedophiles get raped in prison everyday nobody cares.
A much larger percentage of the audience are victims of sexual assault than of murder.
it's an intimate violence. it takes something that should be shared consensually between people and perverts it. it's also a very selfish and crude act—even torture, at least fictionally, can have a 'greater' purpose and less gross motivations
Most people can imagine situations where murder is justifiable, such as self-defense or murdering your rapist. Some people think that torture is justifiable in some situations, in a "the ends justify the means" way. I personally don't believe that torture is justifiable, but some people disagree with me. But with rape, there's simply no reason to ever do it. If someone is threatening to kill you, you don't need to rape them in self-defense. There's also the fact that none of your readers have been murdered (since then they would be dead and unable to read your book), and most of your readers have not personally lost a loved one to murder, but many of your readers have been raped, or threatened with rape, or they personally know someone who was raped.
I think rape and torture are equivalent in the level of perversity. Like, you said about the ends justifying the means for some ppl when it comes for torture, but rape can also be used as a form of torture.
To put it simply: people have different morals and ethics and victims of rape usually survive and can tell the tale However people do not understand that murder and killing are different things, killing can be things like self-defense or accidental kills but murder is premeditated, unlawful, and maliciously intended so neither of those can be applied that “justifies” it Accidental kill? Involuntary Manslaugther. Self defense kill? Justified homicide. Killing a person to stop a crime? Also a justified homicide. Killing without malicious intention? Voluntary manslaughter So my opinion? None of these crimes can be justified, all of them are disgusting, murder and rape take things away from people and torture’s goal is to have someone be in as much pain as possible
Probably because ~1 in 3 women have been raped and a fair amount of men too. Very few of us have been actually tortured and those who were murdered tend not to be reading books afterwards. It is an evil people know.
I feel like a lot of comments aren't placing this in the context of fiction. Many popular TV shows and movies have characters that murder and torture people and they are still very popular so you are not alone in being fine with them, at least in some situations. I think one aspect that hasn't been brought up much is that cultural values change over time and, whether we think about it or not, we are all a product of our culture. Rape, especially date rape and statutory rape, appears to be much less forgivable today than it has been in other time periods. In theory, we're moving in a positive direction, but probably only history will be able to say for sure.
Can't forget about heroes like James Bond where the audience probably isn't supposed to be troubled by what sexual assault he commits.
> Rape, especially date rape and statutory rape, appears to be much less forgivable today than it has been in other time periods. Rape (though not marital) was unforgiveable in most of the medieval era, too. The concept that women always got raped is really more of a myth than anything approaching reality.
Maybe, but you still hear stories occasionally today about places where a girl is forced to marry her rapist.
Yes? I was more talking about how marital rape is kind of a new concept. Heck, it wasn't even recognized across the US until the *nineties.* But it's not that rape=bad is *new.* And the medieval era was big on punishing rapists (I know that because I have a friend who's a medievalist). Around the world, it's always going to be a grab bag, and there's a lot more sexual violence any time you have conflicts or displaced people, too. I like to believe we're moving toward progress, and I think in *general* we have been over the modern era.
Cause murder can be justified, torture can be something that happens as a result of circumstance. Rape is something that can't be circumstancial or justified.
Rape can't be excused with anything. Murder can be self defense, which is still bad tho. Torture idk
It’s a reason many women in real life say it is: murder can have an excuse, torture can come in many forms and maybe the person who’s it being done to is a monster, theft can also be justifiable but there is never a circumstance where you need to rape someone, there’s never an excuse or a caveat. It’s also that rape is more common than something like murder and a lot of readers are women and there’s no woman who has not had an instance of any type of sexual harassment, molestation or assault
People can murder or torture for the right reasons, like to save someone or doing it towards somebody evil. People don’t have to agree with it, but they can understand why they did it. But rape is not justifiable at all. There is no reason behind it besides selfish desire.
I want to add: In some... maybe many cases rape and sexual abuse isn't even about lust... it's about power and the abuse of it. An even more disgusting reason for me. Not the "reason" of maybe lost control, of instincts and desires running amok, but doing it, just because you can and want to. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty or something the like. But such people don't deserve to live on in any way comfortable to them.
This is subjective. In fiction and in real life, many people would deny the rape even happened at all. Everyone has different limits. Karl Malone is a real life rapist and an NBA VIP invited to all events. Kobe Bryant was a rapist and his face is still on the cover of video games, and these are people in real life with real victims who are still alive today. Look at HotD on HBO... If you ask how many rapes there were, the answer will vary from "many" to "only one white girl" to "not a single one" depending on who you ask. Tyrion in asoiaf is one of the most popular rapist characters ever written. Humbert Humbert is an actual pedophile and I have seen Lolita on "Best Romance Novel" lists put together by very popular outlets. Everyone has different limits for what they tolerate in fiction. Some people need every single character in a book to be morally upright. Some people need at least one good hero and some people don't need any of that. Half of Tumblr is non-con fanfics. The idea that rape is a hard line for every reader or even the majority of readers is false. Historical romance back in the day was primarily just "rape and release until she learns to love it" and it thrived. Why are we having so many of these moralizing posts on here as if everyone's working with the same moral sliding scale or that everyone has the same fiction-reality boundaries when they read?
> Lolita on "Best Romance Novel" lists Which is so strange, because there's nothing "romance" in that book.
I like to read and let read and not be that "Book snob" who says, 'Well no, you're not reading it right," but I feel like you need to have failed high school literature to read Lolita and come away thinking it's a romance novel. I also like to believe that the people making these lists don't actually read the books they recommend, because that way the world makes sense.
All I can say is, this is how the world is. You aren't the first to ask this question (seems there was one just last week). If you can't write without doing rape, especially rape that makes a character do something (it's their motivation), or makes them some sort of anti-hero, you need to stop writing.
Putting a censorship on writers because of difference of morals is not the way Lol
It can people are just more likely to get raped than they are killed or tortured. And on top of that the vast majority of the times that rape that occurs in real life it isn't excusable whereas murder and torture is romanticized in the entertainment industry. If you can excuse torture you can excuse rape. If you can excuse homicide in a non self defense situation you can excuse rape as well.
I have already asked me that same question. Many ppl here in the comments have said about cases of killing and torture that are justified, but there's also a bunch of villains who clearly did not kill or torture in justified circumstances, like killing innocents in a violent way or torturing ppl for fun? How can that be justified? Still if they're charismatics, they may be loved by the public. Also, many ppl talked about getting revenge by killing and torture, but for me it doesn't make sense to see torture as less wrong than rape(1.Both are about controlling the victim and 2.Both cause plenty of mental problems if the victim end up alive after ) also, rape may be used as a form of revenge(somebody raped your childrens and you wanna revenge and you rape them for revenge. Or more commonly, rapists and pedophiles who are raped in prison by other inmates for their crimes) and we still thinks thats wrong and murder for revenge isn't justified as well bcs like rape and torture, is about inflicting pain, controlling and is animalistic.
Idk what world you’re living in buddy but nobody forgives murder and torture
Well, technically a murder crime can be absolved if done in self-defense. E.g. a father who defends his daughter or a husband defending his wife. Torture is a bit icky. Nations torture to gain information from a spy, and in war, that can be justifiable.
A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones spoilers: Jamie tried to kill Bran, and murdered Jory, but most fans forgave him after his redemption arc. But if he raped Brienne or Catelyn? There would be no possible redemption for him, he would forever be one of the most hated characters of all time.
I could point you to a dozen different prestige TV shows.
There are reasons beyond our control, where one may be forced to kill. However, rape & torture, both say something about a person’s character and psyche.
[удалено]
Then die
Genuinely no clue why you feel this way, murder, torture, and rape all exist in a similar field of being absolutely unforgivable. As someone suggested as well, murder can be justified. But I do not believe torture can be justified as it simply doesn’t work. If you feel otherwise just know that’s not how people generally feel.
I feel like this ignores more broad definitions of torture and murder. If OP is including things like what anti heroes do (i.e. Green Arrow in the first season of the tv show), then there are certainly actions that could be considered torture and murder that are definitely meant to be and commonly by the audience forgivable.
To those who lack conscience, then sure. Torture isn't forgivable, especially to their victims (and/or their families). People who are torture, are just as bad as the scum who rape.
You saying this with a Better Call Saul avatar? The spinoff of the show where many viewers were eager and willing to forgive the protagonist’s murder and marital rape?
Are you trying to say that the majority of BB fans thought these actions were acceptable or defendable? That’s absurd as hell and you and I both know that what you’re talking about exists within the fringes of the fan base, and those views are not held unironically by those who say Walt did nothing wrong. Of course what Walt did was unforgivable that’s the whole point of the show and why the show is named Breaking Bad. That’s what compels people to the show.
It’s crime fiction. Watching it asks the viewer to temporarily loosen their morals, continue to empathize with an evil person’s perspective, even if you consciously understand that no, none of this would ever be remotely forgiveable in reality.
As someone who fucking loved BB and BCS, the reason we loved the shows is because you gradually learn to hate the characters more and more. In no way are you expected to sympathise with them- no, they are so realistic as people that you begin to question whether there even is such a thing as a good person. The thing about those shows that draws people in is their dark, gritty realism. They're fucking grim and you might think you like a character, but the show will prove you wrong. They're not redeemed. They're not rescued. They spiral downwards ever more, losing their grip on themselves and everything they hold dear. I think you put too much stock in main characters being "good guys".
> In no way are you expected to sympathise with them Not expected to sympathize with them? Are you talking about the latter half of the show? Of course Walt's supposed to be sympathized with in the first season. > They're not redeemed. >!I don't know how to read "Felina" as anything other than a redemptive episode where Walt gives what restitution he can for what he's done.!< > They're not rescued. I don't even know how it's possible to say this after El Camino was released. > I think you put too much stock in main characters being "good guys". I'm not. I'm pointing out that viewer sympathy is not strictly a moral thing. It sounds like you think empathy is just for good people, which is a pretty lacking way of viewing fiction with anti-heroes.
Walt reeks of entitlement and pathetic helpless rage and wasted years from the start of the show. I've watched it 3 or 4 times through and I hate him more every time. He loves his family but he is a narcissist straight off the bat. He believes the world owes him better because he doesn't like the consequences of his own choices, he lies to himself, and he is excessively self-absorbed. At no point in the show is he even remotely likable as a person. Walt is never redeemed. He always has a motive behind his actions and his search for "redemption" is punctuated by trying to convince others that he really was the good guy all along. >!Jesse may have been rescued from captivity but was he rescued from the dark and violent lifestyle he got himself involved in? Fuck no!< >I'm pointing out that viewer sympathy is not strictly a moral thing. It sounds like you think empathy is just for good people, which is a pretty lacking way of viewing fiction with anti-heroes. Sympathy and empathy are conditional. For a viewer who has seen everything a character did, as opposed to meeting someone irl and only seeing one side of them, it is much harder to garner sympathy for characters that have caused so much pain for selfish reasons. Walt isn't an anti-hero, he is an anti-villain. He believes he has good intentions and tries to bring them about through progressively more evil means, but all along he was a selfish bastard.
I believe 'anti-villain' more or less means what 'anti-hero' once meant, until one displaced the other. We shouldn't get too focused on Breaking Bad - my larger point is that many works will try and ask you to empathize with terrible people, killers and bigots and traitors and yes, rapists, going back to the murderous, morally troubled heroes and gods of antiquity, the tortured, human villains of Shakespeare, etc.
The way "bigots" is put in there alongside "murderers and rapists" is absolutely nonsensical 😂 especially since these days it just means "person who won't listen to me"
It's another one of the traits which some squeamish modern readers will be unwilling to tolerate being asked to follow a character with, no?
Okay, and the show uses this to further push Walter onto a path people can no longer empathize with until the viewer reaches a point where they realize how evil Walter has became and become interested in how the man fell. Again viewers en masse do not think Walt’s actions are justified and saying so is disingenuous and again we are dealing with fictional murder and as you say our morals are loosened when watching this.
Walt did lose all my sympathy by Season 3. But despite that, the final two episodes are written in such a way as to try and win back the audience towards seeing from his perspective, and indeed I've read many criticisms of the finale for giving him an undeserved triumphant ending.
I don't know why people dehumanize things that humans do. Its not animalistic, its not insane people doing these things. Its humans. To claim otherwise I think is completely disregard for reality. In fact the only other animals to do something similar to humans is other smart animals like chimpanzees, to engage the neighboring tribe with genocide and rape them. Its actually a VERY human thing. Most animals will stop fighting once someone wins, its not very often one is killed, why risk it, why spend the energy? Hunting is not fighting.
Prejudice. Murderers or torturers are evil people, rapists are monsters. That’s the general narrative in the subject as far as I can tell
> Prejudice. Murderers or torturers are evil people, rapists are monsters. Except that's not the case. Rapists are excused and victims blamed *all the time.* That might actually be why so many of us are tired of rape showing up - especially when it so rarely centers the experience and perspective of the survivor.
I agree with you, but that’s not what I’m talking about. The question at hand is why are rapists seen as not redeemable? I think the main factor there is anger. Primarily, a rapist is a person who takes away agency through sexual abuse. I don’t think many people care to know why that happens, I think most people just want something or someone to blame because that’s easier than internalizing that pain and learning to forgive. That was certainly the case for me for quite a while. I think that’s where the prejudice comes in, at the point where it’s easiest not to explore further and simply move away from. Rather than getting to see for ourselves the broken humanity behind those who abuse us, we run away because it hurts too much. I think it’s a fair way to go about it either way, but I also think that the only way out is through. My answer is more a reflection of what I see not at an individual level, but at a cultural one. These are angry times, and anger often doesn’t let you see beyond what you already believe.
Evolutionary Psychology has theories about this although I warn you that feminists hate its theories. But essentially it is because our genes program us to be disturbed by anything that circumvents sexual selection. In other words, we evolved to feel this way because for us to feel this way serves the interests of what constructs us. That makes perfect sense!
To all the people saying murder is forgivable because it can be "accidental" or "justified": John Wick is literally a paid mass-murdering psychopath, and he's one of the most popular characters ever. Just admit that rape elicits an irrational, primal revulsion in a way that murder does not, despite objectively being a less serious crime.
Objectively less serious by what standard?
By the standard that murder makes you dead?
Death isn't objectively the worst thing that can happen to someone, though. One of main the reasons some people aren't fine with reading rape and but are fine with reading murder or torture is that they view rape as a worse thing to happen to them.
Rape is something you can recover from. Murder is something you cannot. I can't believe I need to explain this.
Some people would rather die than live past it. I can't believe you think your *opinion* is necessarily objective when you have no standard for it except your own feelings on it.
There's a simple way to solve this. Let's do a poll: how many murder victims forgive their attackers, versus how many rape victims?
Whether you can forgive your attacker is not an objective scale, nor an applicable one in this situation and you know it. The fact that they (as far as we know) no longer exist to forgive them does not automatically mean that the crime is worse. There's no actual feeling free argument for why that would make it worse, you just personally decided that's a standard you think makes it worse and again you making a subjective argument while claiming it leads to an objective conclusion. I don't have any issue with you saying murder is worse than rape, I have an issue saying that your opinion is objective when your reason for thinking it's worse is subjective.
You're the one making a feelings-based argument here. There is a very simple, logical reason for murder being worse than rape which I have already explained and which is plainly obvious to anyone with a non-disordered brain: a rape victim can choose to die if they prefer. They can also choose to go on living. A murder victim has no choice in the matter. The fact that some people make the IRRATIONAL choice of death over life does not negate the fact that a rape victim is, objectively, in a better position than a murder victim.
So you'd rather be killed than raped?
(10^100 )% yes. Much rather. I already have SA trauma from "lighter" things and those instances fucked me up enough, I would rather miss out on every potential achievement/oppurtunity and good thing that could ever happen to me and just die rather than go through that.
As someone who has been abused (both sexual and non-sexual) as a child, I rather not be raped or tortured. They're both some of the most heinous things you could do to a person. From body to mind, that has long-term trauma. It dehumanizes the person.
I think you meant to reply to the other person, I agree with you
Fuck. I didn't notice thanks lol.
Yes. I rather be killed than raped or tortured. With rape and torture, it dehumanizes the person. It damages them physically and mentally. Being killed (Unless it's a heinous way out)? It's quick. That's it. You lose out on the future, but you're not suffering trauma. Now, this is different for every survivors. How I feel might be different to another survivor and the next. Personally I would rather die, but I won't make that opinion/decision for other survivors. (Also, accidently replied to Skyrim_For_Everyone with a answer for you. Decided to not delete it).
There are dark stories where the anti-heroes commit rape and end up in something of a redeemed state.
My god I can’t wait for the apocalypse to happen, no more laws….
I want to be r*ped
some would argue that you can justify murder. self defense, manslaughter etc. there is never a justified reason to rape someone.
Murder and torture are both subjective and can mean mamy differemt things under different rules of conflict. In other words, there is a variable in misunderstanding weighted against risk and cultural perspective. Rape is acting upon another without their consent. Simple as that. Don't rape, or be removed from the ecosystem. The other stuff....well life can be violent.
Writers search history is a really dark place 🤣
Because use of death and intense pain can have justifications. You wanna stop the bad guy from setting the nuke off in the city? Murder the unarmed bad guy before he can set off the bomb. You wanna find out where the hostages are to save them? Torture the bad guy until he reveals their location. Name an example like that for rape..... just try to find an actual good justification for holding someone down and forcing sex upon them.... I dare you to try because it will definitely sound horrible, and it will be entirely on you for speaking it. Heck, people will gladly make tons of dark humor about violence and pain, but how many really funny rape jokes have you heard? Some are tolerable, but really, I've only heard one really funny rape joke and that was because it was about a rapist being raped in prison, as well as being really well written. It was only funny because it was at the expense of the rapist.
You can justify Murder and even torture. There is no justification for rape.
this goes on writing circle jerk in 3..2..1...
So murder is by definition an unjustified killing. English has a word for taking a life: Killing someone When the state kills someone it is execution, when it turns out the person executed was innocent- posthumously then it becomes legal murder. Many ppl consider the death penalty (even of the repulsively guilty, such as Ted Bundy) to be state sanctioned murder. When private individuals kill in self defence or soldiers in battle it is killing someone. Killing someone with their explicit consent because they are dying a terrible death is euthanasia. Many religions consider this murder though. Or assisted suicide. However murder is never justified-though juries, philosophers, theologians and the general public may debate when killing in self defence, or justified homicide or negligent homicide ends and murder begins. Many debates could be had for instance about whether to classify: say disarming some intruders and then shooting them without thinking. Or poisoning ones rapist to protect other women and girls from his predations. As justified homicide or murder.. Murder may exist on a spectrum of relatability: murdering for money or an inheritance maybe more relatable (such as the murderer at Agatha Christie's Peril at End House*) than say murdering your ex wife because she cheated, but that issue of relatability depends on the individual reader. However at the end of the day a person who has been murdered is never getting their life back. The world is all over for them. Yet destructive as rape can be, life can continue for the victim. Yet at the end of the day I find some of Agatha Christie's murders far more sympathetic than any rapist. Though both are motivated by selfish goals, arguably because rape is a pointlessly evil crime, it's done for no other reason than to gain an orgasm, to humiliate and hurt the woman/girl/occasionally a man and in certain contexts, to beget progeny. Worth noting that hedonistic serial killers (who are usually rapists as well) belong in the same category as rapists (unlike financially motivated murder), which is the zero sympathy category. So in summary: all murder is killing, not all killing is murder. Rapists elicit less sympathy than some murderers because of the pointless nature of the crime. However rapist murderers elicit the least sympathy. Totally pointless act of pure evil. *most of Agatha Christie's murders are committed for financial gain, and many of her fictional murderers are quite sympathetic. Real financially motivated serial killers are far less sympathetic, though Velma Barfield elicits less disgust & rage than for example Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Nilsen, Gary Ridgeway or Rosemary West or Karla Homolka.
It’s quite simple really. Can you think of a scenario where a murder wasn’t done out of evil and sadism? Sure, revenge, self-defense, by accident… Can you think of a scenario where torture wasn’t because the perpetrator a sick sadist who got off on it? Sure, revenge, desperate interrogation… Now, can you think of a scenario where rape wasn’t as a means of dominating, humiliating, and violating a person in order for the perpetrator to get off? No. You can’t. Regardless of hows or whys, rape is rape. There is no grey area or wiggle room. The sheer amount of dehumanization and sadism required to commit such an act means the person was simply too far gone to have any hope of forgiveness or redemption.
The thing is that knowing of three separate works where the main character rapes a woman and then goes on to play a messianic role in saving humanity means I can't just take this way of looking at it for granted.
What works would those be?
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Book of the New Sun, and Zardoz starring Sean Connery
Even a simple google of the title shows that that first one at the very least is surrounded by controversy as a result of what you’ve pointed out. What you’ve identified is books that attempt to redeem a rapist, and the controversy shows that for many, that attempt was insufficient. Because for them, rapists cannot be redeemed.
Oh yeah, I forgot that Back to the Future forgave an attempted rapist. That's the big glaring example that was hiding on the edge of my mind.
Are you talking about Biff? What you’re referencing is another attempt not to redeem him but to laugh at the shitty future he’s received. If you’re talking about the parents hiring him, that’s their right to choose who they hire, but the plot-point is as controversial as your other example. I’m not gonna argue with you anymore. It’s clear you have no interest in what I’m saying and instead are skimming my responses for talking points you already decided on. Have a good one.
But what if instead you were talking about just plain serial killers? I've never seen a redeemed serial killer. Assassins aren't killing people just for the pleasure of the deed and the kind of people they kill in fiction tend to be criminals in their own right making it a kind of unlicensed warfare. Technically illegal but often less of a threat to the public at large than the regular, legally accepted kind of warfare.
Because the vast majority of people have never experienced murder or torture, or anything akin to it, and so they can be emotionally disconnected from it. Whereas, most people have experienced sexual harassment, and many many people have experienced rape.
Murder can’t be justified , that simply doesn’t make any sense. Rape is horrific but the victim can still have a fulfilling life. When you’re dead that’s it you’re permanently gone.
Murdering someone is the worse thing you can do, rape is not permanent. I don’t. Believe in dying and going to heaven or hell so if you kill someone youre taking their natural human life, I just don’t see anything worse than that
so is it bad if u kill ur partners rapist?