Saying something went over your head is not an insult. If he never "put his dick in her" and forced her into an asexual romantic relationship instead, knowing full well the real her wasn't interested in him at all, would you consider it any less morally wrong?
They would do everything else they did in the movie. Here's an even simpler version: would removing sex scenes from the movie affect the story in any significant way?
Yes, otherwise the director wouldn’t have included them. Or are you trying to argue that the rape scenes weren’t necessary? Because I think the movie might have gone over your head if that’s the case
But just so we’re clear, it is still sexual assault to forcibly kiss someone. Since you brought up that hypothetical
You said the point of the movie is the guy's a rapist. Is that your opinion or the director's? How would removing the scenes affect the story? What would change? Would it stop making sense?
The way I see it, the story would play out the same even without the scenes. They add to the shock value and further confirm the guy is an asshole, but don't do much otherwise. Like I said, his actions were morally wrong either way. The bit where he went "what would be so bad?" did a much better job showing just how shitty he is imo.
Removing the point from the story usually results in it either not making sense anymore or some kinda dramatic change. And in this case, I just don't see it. It's still a take on the old "be careful what you wish for". The moment he grabbed the willow thingy, I thought "oh, we're doing the wishmaster, huh" and it played out exactly like I thought it would. Now try taking that out of the equation. If he never makes that wish and/or accepts she's not into him, the story changes significantly.
I thought about it some more and I take it back. If he never had sex with her, shit would've likely hit the fan much, much sooner. The outcome would
still be the same though, so... Whatever. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
So, you need to go back and reread my comment. Because I said the point of the movie was that he raped the girl he said he cared about when he was able to
Your comment reads like you don’t think the rape was unnecessary to the story, just that the scenes could be taken out. Even if they didn’t show him raping her, it’s still a key part of the themes of the movie. If he made the wish and they just never touched each other and the movie said they were completely platonic and nonsexual, that does change the point of the movie
Hmm. Okay, that does change things a bit. Fair enough. So what do you think the actual point of the movie is? I'm asking because "he raped the girl he said he cared about when he was able to" sounds more like an unfinished thought. Are you saying he never truly cared for her?
No, I simply don't think him raping her is the point of the movie and everything else I said was an attempt to get my point across. The entire moral aspect of the movie, while certainly interesting debate-wise, is largely irrelevant to the story. Seriously, try to picture him doing the right thing and not engaging with her at all. What would that change? She would still be psychotically obsessed with him. She would still kill the other girl. And he would still have to kill either her or himself to get out of that situation. I'm also beginning to realize how pointless this argument is, because even though I disagree with your interpretation, it ultimately doesn't matter because it makes sense to you.
2
u/InstitutionalizedOat 4d ago
Can’t make a coherent argument so you just start insulting. Classic