[2Wycked]

“I Spit On Your Grave” was a supremely controversial film originally released in 1978 and was immediately panned by feminists for supporting rape. Roger Ebert stated it was the worst film he has ever seen. To this day, many countries like Iceland & Sweden have banned the film because they claim it promotes violence against women. A remake was released in 2010 to much less fanfare, mostly because some feminists have tried to argue it was a story of female empowerment against the misogynistic rape culture the world is bathed in.

Let me give you my impressions of both movies - note I haven’t seen the original in some years. The original was very cheaply made & the production reflected that. The rape scenes are tough to watch, but you know its fake so it isn’t as intense as some feminists claim. The retaliation of the woman is also brutal and carries some interesting implications for rape & sex. The remake was better, with the rape scene downplayed & the revenge scenes played up.



The general plot is this: a young, attractive urban woman heads from the city to the country, where she holes up in a small cottage in order to write her own novel. She gets noticed by two local men, who drive past her cottage repeatedly the first day. She gets a grocery delivery from a local mentally handicapped man, whom she befriends. The other two learn of this and demand the mentally handicapped talk about her. The two versions differ on what happens next, but she gets raped by the mentally challenged man at the behest of the other two, calling him a “faggot” if he doesn’t do it. She escapes only to find a local cop, who takes her back to the cabin for another brutal round of rape.

They all task the handicapped fellow to kill her and dump her in the river. He can’t bring himself to do, so he leaves her to die in both versions. A long story short, she subjects them to vicious killings after luring them in with the prospect of sex. She seduces them, and then kills them brutally in a way that reflects his role in her rape. For example, in the 2010 version, the man who just watched & filmed her rape, she pins his eyes open with fish hooks, pours fish feed into his eyes so crows pick his eyes out, all the while having a video camera record the depraved killings. In both versions, she kills them all and have her smiling in the final shot.

This is a movie I will be revisiting in future write-ups, as it supremely misunderstood. It encapsulates feminist critiques of masculinity, misunderstanding of rape & why it happens and issues of sexism and how it relates to women.

Let’s talk about rape first. I have a copy of the “The Natural History Of Rape,” and it is a fascinating read, but the breakdown is not needed here. Just understand that this book was supremely controversial & upsetting to social constructionists who like to pretend the world can be reformed in their own image once all the “hate” is gone. Rape exists in all societies and many other animal species. The authors argue that rape is an evolutionary strategy used by a small minority of men. It is based out of sexual impulses that seek to use power to slack said sexual desires. It has been panned by most outlets, as another “just-so” story of evolutionary biology (critics who level that accusation apparently have looked in a mirror) and it reeks of rape-apologism & misogyny.

Before I go any further, I am a bit skeptical of many of their claims, but understand that rape is often based out of sociopathy, narcissism & anti-social traits. There is alot that goes into why somebody would rape, but such an expansive discussion is beyond the scope of this article & I would need to do more research.

Okay, leaving the critiques of bad science behind, as most of those accusations have been leveled by non-scientists like Michael Kimmel, let’s talk about rape-apologism. Talking about rape and why it exists is very much akin to talking about pedophilia to some. Some people treat science as some sort of religion that we must bow down before. Proving that rape has some biological origins does nothing to prove or suggest it is right. We see this obsession with those trying to prove homosexuality is biologically determined. The implication is that if homosexuality is biological, then we must not stand in its way.

So what? Hypergamy is biological, so must we let it run its course in society? Proving something has biological origins means absolutely nothing more than said trait or condition has biological roots. Arguing rape has biological roots does nothing to signify that the researcher is proving rape is okay in some sense.

This idea that people, men mostly, want to advance arguments that rape is okay or legitimate is completely delusional. When Ebert saw the movie in at a movie theater, he claimed a man yelled out something to the effect of, “Yeah, give it to that bitch, she is asking for it!” when the woman is getting raped. He then claimed that a woman yelled out something to the effect of, “That’s right, give them their due!” when the woman is revenge killing them. This encapsulates one the most problematic approaches that feminists & their sympathizers take towards rape - that it is some sort of sexist, gendered battle which pits male rape sympathizers against female rape opponents.

Recall Todd Akin. His ignorant comment had little to nothing to do with supporting rape, but it went viral & showed just how much the idea of rape culture is false. That comment is what set off a firestorm in the media? It proves there is precious little to support the idea that rape culture exists & that men, as a class, support it.

Back to the movie, one the most enduring criticisms of the flick is that it encourages men to rape. First, men are not women. They don't take to fads or emulate behavior of other men in the media like women do. Second, is the idea that depicting rape, in and of itself, supports rape. This point makes no sense as people watch all sorts of stuff, like murders, robberies or intense psychological abuse without a hitch. We may rightfully worry about impressionable children viewing such material, but we don't about adults, right?

Wrong. Women are admitting they are psychologically weaker than men if they are so worried about men getting the wrong impression from movies like this. It is narcissistic projection, as women from time immemorial have taken cues from all sorts of media - books, tall-tales & TV - for their social behavior well into late adulthood. Since they understand they tailor their life around what other women are doing, they assume men do the same.



This bleeds into another critique of the movie and it results around masculinity and rape. I recently discussed masculinity and how feminists get critiques of masculinity based on sexism against women wrong. This critique argues that male masculinity is based on misogyny and having to prove their manhood by oppressing and hurting women - sometimes involving rape.

This is a supreme misreading of how modern masculinity operates. Modern masculinity isn't so much a performance based on hatred, but based on authoritarianism. Like the post I cited above, it is about having men getting their self-concept of masculinity validated by authority figures. It may sound vaguely feminist, but it is not.

One key axis of modern masculinity relates to getting female approval. When the mentally handicapped man is called a faggot for not wanting to rape the woman, it isn't about homophobia or misogyny, but about his lack of ability to slake a female's sexual desire. That man was a virgin and his "friends" wanted to get him laid. Just because they used a horrifically violent method to achieve it doesn't invalidate it is about using sex to prove his ability to please a woman.

This whole "pleasing women" is part and parcel of male feminism. These sorts of males suborn themselves at all manner of restrictive speech codes and self-abnegation. That is whole you learn to not be a fucking asshole & divest yourself of your male privilege. No, it is about continuing masculinity as being based on whether a female approves of a a male or not. Just because feminists often excise the sexual part with their allies, does not mean it still isn't, at its core, about female approval of men.



Also, consider the youth & good looks of the female lead. This assuredly caused issues because detractors complain that it sexualizes the rape. Rape is non-consensual sex, that's it. You cannot divorce rape from sex completely, like many anti-rape advocates try. It is some sort of psychological splitting, as sex is either pure & good or forced & evil. That isn't healthy behavior, as it feeds the concept of women changing their mind about sex after the fact, etc. The historical revisionism is allows is dangerous and does nothing to actually address rape so much as it allows the more disturbed women of the world space to reinvent their past.

In that aforementioned book "A Natural History Of Rape," the authors argue that rape happens much more to young, attractive women than any other demographic. Further, they argue rape affects them much more than other demographics. They also argue this is because they are fertile and rape robs them of their reproductive autonomy.

Once again, this is very controversial. Social constructions of beauty feed into this, as anti-rape advocates almost always are social constructionists when it comes to beauty standards. Critics of the movie cite concerns over men sexualizing the female lead and then linking rape with female beauty. Depicting old, fat women as rape victims isn't a reflection of reality of rape victims, but there is another more important point.

It is that women are attracted to power and, as such, there is a much closer link between violence and sex. I can't find the link, but when porn went online, porn producers started creating categories of rape & sexual violence. The vast majority of men had no desire in watching men rape or hurt women. However, some women were interested in watching violence visited on women by attractive men. The feminist argument would be that women have so thoroughly imbibed violence against them they sexualize it in order to deal with it.

Plausible for a few, maybe. Women sexualize violence much more than men do precisely exercises of violence over somebody's person is an act of domination. Even most female feminists admit to being "subs" in the bedroom, but want to leave it there. Even they admit women get off on being the acted upon partner sexually!



However, a final point about narcissistic moral judgmentalism must be made. TLP made a great observation about those who oppose domestic violence & their arrogant, moral grandstanding isn't about helping victims, but self-aggrandizement.

We see this with reviews of the movie. Most reviewers stress how backward the men are, how misogynistic they are. They must be homophobia, macho men who can't handle their homosexuality or empowered women. Bizarre, but an expected level of moral judgmentalism that is based on what TLP identified above. It isn't about reading the situation and making clear-headed observations about the characters in the film, it is about signaling to others you know these are bad, bad men.

Honestly, so fucking what? 99% of people know these men did a bad, bad thing. Like I pointed out above, these sorts of people like to pretend there are contingents of people who are their opposites - who advocate for rape. There is absolutely no need to signal you know these men are bad.

As for the woman's reaction, let's consider her life. She is educated, moneyed and a grown woman. If she decides to go in on these guys for raping her instead of going to police that is her choice. In the original, she goes to church to beg for forgiveness for what she is about to do, admitting she knows it isn't the appropriate response. Just because it is her choice does not mean it is legal, moral or ethical. We see this confusion in debates about abortion - saying it is her choice is meaningless because it is always her choice to decide to abort. The ramifications morally, or ethically or psychologically are a different question as well as if it is legal to do so.

Back on point, the feminist and female response gets tripped up on how to interpret the woman's response. They are looking to show others how against rape they are and it becomes one massive competition to prove how much against rape they are. Men, in particular, have to go over and above to prove to women they are against rape 100%, unlike their closeted, macho male counterparts.

It isn't about ending rape or anything like that, it is about narcissistic self-preening. My university has multiple big summits every semester about ending rape, raising awareness, etc. - but it is all about feminist preening to show off how progressive they are.

To sum up, it is a very sad, disturbing movie that lends itself to no clear understanding in the end. That is its point - to get your Irish up & see how you react. The feminist response in 1978 was very predictable and embarrassing for the movement. The movie highlights issues of why rape occurs, why modern masculinity is not based out of misogyny & how anti-rape advocates are often just use rape for moral grandstanding.

[urbannomad]

Another engrossing movie characterization dissection. One the most hardest pill to swallow for me is the fact most women have a rape fantasy. Roger Allen Curry has mention several times on his radio show about a reputable guy in BDSM community that gets paid to rape women.

I would love to hear more detail about Rape and Eroticism..Great Post !

[A War You Cannot Win]

I love acting out faux rape scenarios with women. The power play and fantasy is one of the only sure fire ways to get me aroused. Even if I'm having 'vanilla' sex with a girl I like cover her mouth with one of my hands and imagine I'm raping her.


They seem to enjoy it as much as I do.

As for the remake of I spit...

My old platoon had a copy of that movie while we were doing a mission in some shithole central Asian country. During breaks we'd rewatch the rape scene over and over. 'show your teeth' and 'show horse' was the pass and challenge quite a few times.

[ColSpanker]

The DVD version of the originally release has a Joe Bob Biggs commentary which is worth listening to. The filmmakers were Israeli, oddly enough. Meir Zarchi is reported to have screened the film before it's initial release to a film school. During the discussion afterwards, he supposedly said he only made the movie to make some cash.
I quit watching the remake because they changed to setting from the North East to Down South. Can't have the states who voted for teh gey being mistaken for stupid white trash rednecks!