'Take it like a man': The Trivialisation of Male Rape in Contemporary Cinema

Synopsis:

The focus of this dissertation is the representation of male-on-male rape in contemporary cinema. This dissertation will argue that in all representations, male rape is highly trivialised and not given the same attention or sympathy as the representations of female rape. These arguments can also be extended to wider culture, as male rape is not only considered taboo within the cinema but in contemporary society as well. This study will examine the way male rape is only used for the shock tactics and serves no function to the wider plot in cinema and argue that most of the time male rape is not mentioned after the initial attack has taken place. This dissertation will most significantly be focusing on the following films: The Shawshank Redemption, American History X, Pulp Fiction and Mysterious Skin, to support the main arguments but will also make reference to other texts. The main conclusion drawn from this study is that in cinema, victims of male rape are seen to put themselves into otherwise avoidable situations which implies that the rape is justified or that they 'deserve' it. This dissertation will also be making the case that the lack of realistic representations of male rape in cinema is a dangerous influence on modern society, which reinforces the feelings of shame and social stigma that is already associated with male rape victims rather than challenging the concept as a serious issue.

'When men are raped by other men, society tends to silence and erase them rather than acknowledge the vulnerability of masculinity and manhood' (Scarce, 1997, p.9)

Introduction:

                The representation of male rape in cinema is a particularly interesting area of study because it is an issue that is not only considered taboo within cinema but within contemporary society itself.  The rape of men is by no means a new occurrence but regardless it is yet to attract the same amount of public attention and sympathy as the rape of women (Scarce, 1997), p.8) . In fact, Michael Scarce argues in his book 'Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame' that the mere idea of male rape is so taboo that when it is represented in cinema it turns into somewhat of a spectacle, rid of emotion and empathy and turned into a quick way to give the audience a cheap shock at no great expense to the wider narrative.
   In modern society male rape is thought to be one of the most 'underreported and unaddressed violent crimes' (Scarce, 1997, p.9),  with only around 11% of male sex crimes being reported (Allen, 2012).  It is believed that this lack of visibility reinforces the victim's sense of isolation and embarrassment, thus they leave their attack unreported and 'the cycle of silence is perpetuated.' (Scarce, 1997, p.9)  It has also been found that the most written, discussed and documented male rape is the rape of boys, which further fuels the adult male survivor's feelings of shame and fear of social stigma following sexual assault (Scarce, 1997, p.9)

       The trauma of rape is considered much greater for men as it places their sense of manhood and social reputation at stake and the lack of positive or in-depth representations in cinema fuel this perception.  There begs a question of the 'type' of man to fall victim to rape with an extreme ideology being that 'men who are raped are not 'real men', men who are raped become gay and gay men both desire and enjoy being raped' (Scarce, 1997, p.120) This association with homosexuality is thought to play a key role in the shame and stigma that surrounds male rape and it has been argued that society often treats same-sex rape with the same 'disgust and hatred as homosexuality' (Scarce 1997, p. 10), thus creating a much more hostile and insensitive reaction towards male rape survivors, or indeed the cinematic victims, than their female counterparts.
   This preconception of the 'type' of man to fall victim to rape sparked a national campaign in February 2012 called 'Real Men Get Raped' (Figure 1) which aimed to challenge the way society thought about the crime and its victims. The macho-looking posters for the campaign, that depict a Rugby ball being punctured by a needle, featured across the London Underground during the Six Nations Rugby tournament. Michael May from the charity behind the campaign, Survivors UK, said:

                "We’ve chosen to use an alpha male sport in our advertising to challenge assumptions about the type of men who get raped. It’s just as likely to be a rugby player as a librarian,      a suited city banker as a hooded  gang member. And we hope that by challenging our      innate assumptions about the identity of male victims, we can make it even fractionally easier for a male rape victim to ask for help."                                                      (Real Men Get Raped, 2012)

This statement reinforces the large social issues that surround male rape as May directly links society's assumptions about the male rape victim with the difficulty that the victim faces in reporting these crimes. It is also significant to note that the campaign was launched this year (2012), which highlights just how contemporary this social problem is and how modern culture persists to believe 'the rape of men to be a laughable impossibility' (Scarce, 1997, p.9)

                Cinematic representations of male rape are relatively scarce and this dissertation will be making the case that in the few representations that there are, the rape is either trivialised or justified - or both. It will do this in three chapters with chapter one giving a brief history of the representation of male rape in cinema and an overview of the queering of male rape found in comedy films. Chapter two will look at the trivialised representation of male rape within prisons - arguably an environment where rape is both acceptable and expected. Finally, chapter three will discuss the way male rape is represented as a justifiable punishment, with an in depth critical analysis of the rape scene in Gregg Araki's 2004 film Mysterious Skin (Araki, 2004).

Chapter One: Male Rape in Cinema

                In cinema, women surviving rape can shape a whole narrative; Jonathan Kaplan's Oscar-winning film The Accused (1988), starring Jodie Foster, is a leading example of this as the film centres on the emotional trauma of rape and the importance of bringing rapists to justice. However, male rape is never considered the focus of a film and it often occurs towards the end, almost as though to 'spice things up'. Following the attack there is little development as it appears that 'denial and shame take root and the rape is never directly discussed or reflected on for the rest of the movie' (Scarcem 1997, p. 115). Another striking difference between the cinematic representation of male rape compared to female is that the male rape victims never report the attack and so the rapist is never brought to justice in the court of law. Occasionally the rapist does gets his comeuppance through violence, for example in  Deliverance (Boorman, 1972), the hillbilly rapist is shot and killed with a bow and arrow by the victim's friend and in Quentin Tarantino's 1994 film Pulp Fiction  the male rape victim, Marcellus, vows brutal revenge on his rapist. However, this is arguably a negative portrayal as it appears to deny male victims any emotional pain and instead resorts back to primitive representations of  the macho male figure; suggesting that following an attack as traumatic as rape these victims need to 'take it like a man' and use violence to get justice, with reporting the attack  to the police not even being presented as an option. John Boorman's 1972 film Deliverance was the first mainstream film to include a male rape scene and although this dissertation will not be examining this particular film in its subsequent chapters, it is important that it is not dismissed entirely. The film follows four suburban men who go on a river-rafting trip in a small town, the rape scene involves Ned Beatty's character Bobby being forced to strip at gunpoint by two impoverished hillbilly men before he is ordered to squeal like a pig whilst he is raped and Bobby's friend, Ed, looks on. This scene has become somewhat of a cultural point of reference over the years (Thesing and Wrede, 2009, p.239) and is disturbingly considered as a source of comedy, with one radio station in Columbus, Ohio, even telling listeners to call in when they hear them play an audio sample of Bobby squealing like a pig to be in with a chance of winning a hog roast and a barbeque (Thesing and Wrede, 2009, p.239). The pig-like squeals during Bobby's rape have become so embedded into popular culture that there is now merchandise that references this scene as a relevant and appropriate source of comedy available (Figure 2); something that would unarguably cause great controversy if it was referencing the rape of a woman. 

It has been argued that these high-pitched screams in Deliverance also help to reinforce how Bobby is now less of a man after having been forced into a sexually submissive role (Scarce, 1997, p.115)  and the use of hillbillies as the rapist distances the issue of male rape from the general audience as it positions it as 'a kind of savagery that only happens in primitive and uncivilised environments.' (Scarce, 1997, p.117) The rape is then trivialised as it is not mentioned again throughout the entire film and the conclusion seems to place the deadly journey as a 'rite of passage', with Bobby's character, the victim of male rape, seemingly less traumatised than the other male characters who had earned physical injuries from the lake's rapids and mountains (Scarce, 1997, p.117). This representation arguably places male rape as less physically and emotionally tormenting than the manly battle with nature 'in all of its barbaric forms' (Scarce, 1997, p.117), which could prove to be a harmful perpetuation of the social stigma that surrounds male rape and its victims.

                This dissertation will be specifically focusing on male-on-male rape, but it is beneficial to briefly consider the queering of male rape within cinema as well. Women raping men isn't a largely represented issue, however when it is shown it is mainly used as a source of comedy. Wedding Crashers (Dobkin, 2005), starring Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, and Get Him To The Greek (Stoller, 2010), starring Russell Brand, are both mainstream films which feature a woman raping a man and the mere fact that these films are placed in the comedy genre and star some of the biggest comedy actors already highlights the differing representations to any other form of rape. In Wedding Crashers, Vince Vaughn's character Jeremy is being pursued by Gloria (Isla Fisher), who ties Jeremy to the bed while he is sleeping one night and wakes him up by straddling him naked. Jeremy repeatedly says that he does not want to have sex with her but the audience are left to believe that the two have sex anyway. Get Him To The Greek is somewhat more shocking as Aaron (Jonah Hill) falls unconscious at a party and in his hazy awakening is sexually violated by Destiny (Carla Gallo), again Aaron is seen to continuously say 'no' and the scene ends with Destiny implicitly penetrating Aaron with a sex toy. The next scene shows Aaron coming out of the room and telling his friends 'I think I've just been raped' but instead of airing concern or asking any questions his friends just cheer and that is the last that the audience hear about the incident. The fact that a character being sodomized with an object whilst saying no and then using the word 'rape' to describe it is supposed to be funny is incredibly shocking as it suggests that 'a man being raped is so implausible to folks that it's just laughable. You're not watching a 'rape scene' because, call it rape all you want, it can't be real rape and so it's funny.' (New 'Rape Joke' low in 'Get Him To The Greek, 2010) Most significantly, in both cases these scenes serve no function in plot or character development and this reinforces the idea that the mere inclusion of a woman raping a man was to get a shocking 'wow-what-a-taboo' laugh out of it (Carmon, 2011). These films faced little critique from the public but critics have argued that these scenes tell audiences that men cannot be raped by women and 'this idea is harmful to male survivors and will likely prevent future victims from reporting assaults' (Rape Culture: Get Him To The Greek, 2010). It is interesting to consider that if in fact the roles in these scenes were reversed and it was instead a man depicted to be violating a woman in this way, would they still fit comfortably within a comedy film starring some of Hollywood's best-loved comedy actors and would these films still have maintained their BBFC awarded certificate fifteen?

       The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (Fincher, 2011) is perhaps one of the most developed films in its representation as it shows the brutal and violent penetrative rape of a man by a woman. However, as the male rape victim here has previously sexually assaulted the woman raping him, Lisbeth (Rooney Mara), he has been dehumanised and the audience sees Lisbeth's act as 'heinous (but) justified. The sadistic and perverted male rapist gets 'a taste of his own medicine'' (Olivaraz, 2011). So although this film shows important progress in the cinematic representation of male rape, merely by showing that a woman brutally raping a man is possible, it loses some of its integrity as the rape is completely justified and the victim receives no sympathy from the audience. Therefore, the unjustifiable brutal rape of a man by a woman is yet to be represented within cinema.

Chapter Two: Prison Rape

                Susan Brownmiller makes the case that society today generally sees prison rape as 'an acting out of power roles within an all-male, authoritarian environment in which the weaker, younger inmate... is forced to play the role that in the outside World is assigned to women.' (Scarce, 1997, p.13) To an extent, it could therefore be argued that rape is an expected or acceptable consequence of being sent to prison with rape being the 'real' punishment for breaking the law. This blasé reaction to the concept of prison rape is further enforced by the way in which prison rape is often referred to as a source of comedy with jokes such as 'don't drop the soap', which stem from the idea that within the communal showers in male prisons, if you drop your soap and thus have to bend down to pick it up then you are more vulnerable to fall victim of rape. This idea is now considered very much a part of Western humour and often referenced in light hearted television shows such as Family Guy (MacFarlane, 1999-)  and The Simpsons (Groening, 1989-)  as well as within general culture and cinema. This bizarre association between aggressive, abusive prison rape and everyday comedy only reinforces the public perception of male rape being unimportant and something that does not require sympathy or empathy, further isolating male rape victims. Michael Scarce raises this issue as he states that 'survivors who are already stigmatised and silenced are further humiliated in becoming the punch line to the ever-popular 'don't drop the soap' jokes', (1997, p.119) the issue of rape being used as a source of comedy in any way, especially as such an embedded part of Western culture, is shocking and results in the trivialisation of a serious issue.

     Dennis Dugan's 2007 comedy film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry  exploits this Western expectation and humour with a dramatic 'dropping of the soap' scene  in the communal showers at a fire station. In this film Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) play two heterosexual fire-fighters who pretend to be a gay couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. After being 'outed' at work the other men become wary of them and when a  co-worker drops his soap in the communal showers, with Chuck and Larry looking on, there is a sense of over-the-top and exaggerated drama to reinforce the comedic tension. It has been argued that 'the slow-motion shots of the horror-struck faces of fellow fire-fighters when they drop the soap in the shower... takes adolescent humour to new lows' (I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, 2012) as it is poking fun at male rape victims whilst simultaneously implying that gay men are more likely to rape than heterosexual men. The sexual orientation of male rapists is an interesting concept to consider as it has in fact been found that 'the vast majority of men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual' (Myths About Male Rape, The Rape of Men), this may appear shocking to some but studies have shown that rape is 'not the aggressive manifestation of sexuality, but rather a sexual manifestation of aggression. In the perpetrator's psyche it serves no sexual purpose but is the expression of rage, violence and dominance' (Dixon, 2009), making the gender of the victim meaningless to the rapist most of the time. In fact, it could be argued that heterosexual men choose to exert this desire for dominance and expression of rage over other men because the rape of men is considered much less of an issue by society. Within the context of prison rape most of the rapists are heterosexual but may be expressing their sexual desire through the rape of a man because they are denied female company.

              As a result of the jokes that surround the issue of prison rape, cinematic audiences appear to be desensitised to the representation of male rape in this context and when watching a film set in a male prison, the audience holds an expectation of there being a rape scene and so it is much less shocking, and much more trivial, when the rape does occur. Dominique Russell argues that the 'threat of male rape becomes the primary reason to avoid prison, and, once a male character is there, its avoidance can work to shape the entire narrative.' (2010, p.174).  This is particularly true for Tim Robbin's character Andy in 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption (Darabont)as much of the film involves Andy trying to avoid the prison gang known as the 'Sisters', who rape vulnerable inmates. The Shawshank Redemption is a particularly interesting representation of prison rape as the audience knows that Andy is innocent and had been wrongly and unjustly imprisoned. As a result of this, it seems much less acceptable for him to face the 'normal' male prison consequence of rape as he has not done anything wrong and thus does not 'deserve' it. Despite this rare audience empathy that Andy receives, the rape itself is still depicted as something trivial or minor and almost as though it is a rite of passage for any inmate; regardless of whether they are guilty of a crime or not, the fact that they are placed within the prison setting is enough of a justification for the rape attack. The triviality of Andy's rape is highlighted by the way  the film's narrator Red (Morgan Freeman), a fellow inmate, knows that the Sisters are raping Andy and although he expresses a small element of sympathy he brushes the two years of rape attacks that Andy endured as part of Andy's prison 'routine'. The Shawshank Redemption is progressive in the way it reinforces the heterosexuality of not only the rape victim but the rapists as well; when Andy first discovers that the Sisters intend to rape him he says to Red 'I suppose it won't help if I explain to them that I'm not homosexual', to which Red replies 'Neither are they.' This is significant in challenging the aforementioned assumptions about the links between male rape and homosexuality and further highlights how rape is in fact the desire for dominance and power, not sexual lust. It also supports Susan Brownmiller's statement about male inmates being forced into the role typically assigned to women within all-male environments; this does not imply that the rapists inside prison would rape women but rather suggests as they do not have any interaction with women some inmates resort to men to release their sexual desire. In this sense, the men using other men for sex in prison seems to be represented as the 'unavoidable consequence of two or more men being thrown together into a sexually frustrating situation, rather than an expression of active homosexual desire.'(Burston, 1995, p.2) This male replacement for female intimacy within male prisons is also seen in 1979 British film Scum,(Clarke) which is set in a young offenders institute and shows Carlin (Ray Winstone), the most powerful inmate in the institution, asking a younger inmate to act as his 'Missus'. Carlin defends his heterosexuality by repeatedly insisting that he isn't gay but he needs sexual and emotional companionship. Although the sexual relationship between these two inmates appears to be consensual, Scum also includes the male rape of another inmate. It is significant that although the rape isn't explicitly foreshadowed and occurs relatively near the end of the film, it still isn't shocking due to the audience expectation of male rape when viewing a film set in an all-male prison. The rape victim, Davis (Julian Firth), is depicted as a weaker character throughout the film and the rapists are seen to take advantage of his vulnerability as the rape does not appear to be pre-meditated, rather a spontaneous attack on  Davis just because they can. The fact that the rapists are minor characters and had not been featured throughout the film, nor are they well- known as the 'prison rapists' like the Sisters in The Shawshank Redemption, is key in highlighting how within a prison environment, anybody can rape another inmate and they do not have to be built up as one of the inherently 'bad' characters in order for it to seem realistic. The audience's acceptance of rape as a way of prison life makes a rape attack plausible no matter who the victim or the rapists are - the setting alone is enough to explain why the rape is taking place. The rape in Scum is also integral in representing prison rape as acceptable as it shows a prison warden witnessing the three boys raping and attacking another inmate and instead of stopping them or expressing any sympathy for the victim, he ignores what he has seen and leaves interrupting them to the last minute without making any reference to what he has seen them do. The warden then shouts at Davis, the traumatised victim who is crying on the floor, to get up and get back to work before leaving. The warden's reaction suggests that this is not the first time he has witnessed inmates raping each other and that it wouldn't be the last. Similarly to The Shawshank Redemption, rape is depicted as just another aspect of the prisoner's routine that is so acceptable and so every day that authorities won't stop it from happening, even when they can.

                Tony Kaye's 1998 film American History X  links into the next chapter of rape being used as punishment but unlike rape scenes set outside of prison, the rape here is seen to be for the greater good and ultimately character-changing for the victim. In contrast to Andy in The Shawshank Redemption, the rape of Derek (Edward Norton) in American History X is considered highly justified as a lesson that Derek must partake in so that he can learn the error of his ways. Derek is first introduced to the audience as the leader of a highly abusive, racist, neo-Nazi gang and as we actually see the incredibly violent and racially motivated murder of a black man that leads to Derek's imprisonment, the audience holds little sympathy or empathy for his character when he is raped in the prison showers. Following the rape, Derek seems to become a better person and it is significant to note that the first time anybody, including the audience, hears about the rape is once Derek is out of prison, when Derek's younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong) asks why Derek no longer wants to be a part of the racist gangs that he used to lead. The fact that the first time we hear about the rape is following this question implies that it was the rape alone which lead to this dramatic change in Derek's character, when realistically there would have been many other elements that led to this. As the audience can see what a better person Derek is following, and implicitly as a result of, being raped in prison the act is seemingly completely justified and represented as being for the greater good.

                Prison rape is also significant in shaping the all important male bond in cinema as it has been argued that 'male rape attains its true horror within the social and within the context of the knowledge of other men.' (Russell, 2010, p.175)  In The Shawshank Redemption, although Andy does not explicitly discuss being raped with Red after he has been attacked, it is their initial conversation where Red warns Andy that the Sisters want to rape him that seems to initiate their close friendship. Red knows that Andy is being raped in prison and although he describes it as 'routine' and does not try to stop it from happening, he is seemingly able to provide the emotional support Andy needs through simple companionship, which may not have occurred had Andy not been a victim of male rape. The friendship formed in American History X between Derek and Lamont, a black inmate, is somewhat more significant as it serves as further justification for Derek's rape attack. The fact that Lamont appears to be Derek's only friend in prison after he has been raped reinforces just how much the rape has changed Derek, a former racist who is in prison for the murder of a black man. The friendship is used almost like a confirmation of how much better as a person Derek now is and to reassure the audience that as a result of being raped in prison he has changed his moral outlook on life and thus the 'real' lesson of prison has been learnt.

                In addition to the comedy and justification that surrounds the cinematic representation of male rape in prison, the issue is further trivialised by its general social setting. The placement of male rape within the exclusively male domain of the prison is 'essential to the trivialisation of its representation as the act itself in some ways negates civilised society and it has no place in domestic and social normalcy.' (Russell, 2010, p.174) Similarly to the primitive and uncivilised environment that distances the audience of Deliverance from the possibility of male rape in everyday society, representing male rape in prison further enforces rape as something that will only happen to a man if they enter 'dangerous territory', and so they arguably bring the attack upon themselves.  Dominique Russell argues that 'cinematic male rape comes to represent the violation of humanity itself' (2010, p.174) and both the prison and 'hillbilly' settings enforce this as the victims have crossed the safety boundary and entered  a world where humanity seemingly negates to exist and the men already appear to be violated before the rape even occurs, simply by being in these abnormal social settings. These settings trivialise male rape as something that will not happen to a man who stays within the 'normal' parameters of society, which consequently creates a greater distance between the audience and the cinematic victim because it seems to imply that male rape is not something that happens  in everyday, domestic life.

Chapter Three: Rape as Punishment

                In a similar way to prison rape, male rape is represented in cinema as a justifiable way to punish characters for the deviant or perverse lifestyle that they lead. However, unlike prison films such as American History X where the rape victim learns a valuable and moralising lesson, male rape as a punishment outside of the prison setting does not necessarily lead to a change in character.

     This chapter will be looking at Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and Gregg Araki's Mysterious Skin and their representation of male rape as a direct punishment for the victim's deviant lifestyles. In both examples the victim's rape is represented as something that would not have happened had the victim been living a 'normal' lifestyle. In Pulp Fiction, the victim is Marsellus (Ving Rhames) who only enters the shop where he is raped because he is chasing his enemy Butch (Bruce Willis) and ultimately trying to kill him. In Mysterious Skin, the film's protagonist, Neil (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a prostitute who is raped by a client who he would not have encountered had it not been for his perverse line of work. Not only does the victim's deviant behaviour serve as a justification for the rape taking place, it once again reinforces the aforementioned idea that in order for a man to be raped they must get themselves into an otherwise avoidable situation or setting. Cinema is yet to represent male rape as something that could happen in a man's everyday or 'normal' life; the victim always appears to put themselves in a compromising environment and this fuels the common argument that they were 'asking for it'. Female rape is often represented in cinema, as well as in modern society, as something unavoidable that could happen to any woman at any time and women are not often seen to put themselves in a dangerous situation. Michael Scarce makes the case that this is because women are considered the weaker sex and so 'we like to believe that men are capable of defending themselves physically, and if a man is raped, he must have somehow allowed it to happen.' (1997, p.115).

                In Pulp Fiction, Marsellus is depicted by all the other characters throughout the film as the most powerful and masculine character, living a deviant and dangerous lifestyle as a mob boss.  Therefore it is significant that the first time the audience properly sees him is as a victim of male rape. It is also interesting to note that although male rape is arguably not the focal point in any of its cinematic representations, Marsellus' rape in Pulp Fiction is perhaps one of the most trivialised and casual representations as there is little build up to the rape and when it does occur it is saturated with black humour. Prior to the rape, the hillbilly rapists Maynard (Duane Whitaker) and Zed (Peter Greene), a deliberate homage to the impoverished rapists in Deliverance,  have bound Marsellus and his enemy, Butch, to their chairs and have S&M style ball gags in their mouths. Before deciding which of the men to rape first, Zed tells Maynard to 'Bring out the Gimp', their leather-clad sex slave that they keep in a hole in the floor. The inclusion of the Gimp is incredibly unexpected and shocking for the audience and Tarantino plays on these shock tactics to form an uncomfortable undertone of humour to the scene, focusing on the shock and confusion on Marsellus' and Butch's faces whilst reinforcing the strange and unnatural behaviour of the rapists. In fact, the character of the Gimp is now so widely renowned as

a source of uncomfortable comedy for the film's audience that it has now become an embedded part of popular culture and eighteen years after the film's release you are still able to buy 'Bring Out The Gimp' T-Shirts from 'funny' online clothing companies (Figure 3).

    Once the rapists have chosen to rape Marsellus first, the audience stays with Butch rather than going into the back room and witnessing the rape. The dark humour continues to be underline the scene as once Butch manages to get free he spends an exaggerated amount of time choosing which weapon to use in order to save Marsellus. Although the audience can hear implications of Marsellus being raped, the focus is on Butch as he very slowly picks up a weapon before changing his mind multiple times. Butch first finds a hammer, before getting distracted by a baseball bat, then he sees a chainsaw and seems to settle on this before noticing a Samurai sword and finally deciding on this as his defence weapon. The deliberate slow pace to this scene prioritises getting the best or 'coolest' weapon over rescuing a man from being raped and Butch's lack of urgency disregards the gravity of the situation and places the male rape as more trivial than what weapon is used to stop it.

      Pulp Fiction also reinforces the concept of rape being a threat to your manhood and reputation as after Butch rescues Marsellus from the rape, Marsellus only agrees to let Butch go after he swears to never tell anybody else what happened to him. Dominique Russell argues that within cinematic male rape the 'emphasis is not on the act itself but on its economies of shame and witnessing: male-on-male rape becomes a shameful collective secret, one that tends to strengthen masculine bonds' (Russell, 2010, p.175), this is particularly relevant for Butch and Marsellus as prior to being held captive by the two rapists the men were enemies and trying to kill each other. The only reason the men are able to settle their differences and forgive each other is through the shared knowledge of Marsellus' 'shameful' secret. Michael Scarce states that male rape victims feel that they must keep the rape hidden in order to 'protect the male survivor's manhood at all costs,' (Scarce, 1997, p.122) and as Marsellus is considered the most powerful character within the film it appears to be even more integral that nobody else discovers that he was raped in order for him to keep his alpha male reputation. This makes the audience's viewing of the rape all the more uncomfortable, however Marsellus' apparent 'calm' demeanour immediately after the rape has been seen to give the wrong implication to some viewers about the real trauma of rape with one man arguing the following point on an internet thread concerning male rape:

                "I object to some silly counsellor telling a GUY how to cope with rape. Seen the movie   Pulp Fiction? Well the black guy was raped by a man, yet he didn't cry and just kept going. That is the correct attitude. Guys should not be all whimpery and pansy-like. You   get raped, smile and move on. I feel only gals should be crying about rape."
                                                                                                                                      (Scarce, 1997, p.123)

The fact that this individual thinks that Marsellus' response to being raped was to 'smile and move on' highlights how because Marsellus' emotions are not shown in the conventional way he has been denied any emotional pain at all. It is true that Marsellus is not shown to be crying, however you can tell that he has been psychologically affected by it and he even tells Butch that he is 'Pretty fucking far from okay'. It is interesting to see that some viewers consider the fact that Marsellus was not 'pansy-like' and did not cry whilst being raped the height of masculinity in an otherwise emasculating situation.

       Although it is suggested that Marsellus was raped as a punishment for the deviant lifestyle that he leads, the audience are shown that his immediate response following his rescue is to vow brutal revenge on his rapists This arguably serves two functions; the first being a further reinforcement of his hyper-masculinity that represents a 'take it like a man' attitude, which prioritises the desire for a violent vengeance over any kind of emotional or psychological trauma that male rape survivors inevitably experience. The second function of this bloodthirsty response is to highlight that despite the fact Marsellus forgives his arch enemy Butch and lets him go, Marsellus has not been taught an ultimate moral-changing lesson following his 'punishment rape' and it is left for the audience to believe that despite being raped he continues to indulge in his deviant lifestyle, unlike reformed neo-Nazi Derek in American History X, making the rape attack wholly gratuitous.

                Gregg Araki's Mysterious Skin gives perhaps one of the most poignant and disturbing representations of male rape in cinema to date. The central character is Neil, a gay, small-town prostitute who moves to New York City and ignores multiple warnings to stop the perverse and deviant act of having sex with men for money only to fall victim to male rape as a result of it. As a prostitute in a small town in Kansas Neil is confident that he is able to keep in control with his clients and it is only once he moves to New York City that the gradual build up of warning signs begin to form. Although his first client in the city is represented as sex icon who is much more physically attractive than Neil's previous clients, the audience are lead to believe that  Neil is entering a dangerous territory as his best friend Wendy (Michelle Trachtenberg)  warns him that in New York City he has to be extremely careful because 'You do the wrong thing with the wrong person and you die'. This caution serves as a foreshadowing of Neil's next client, an old man who Neil discovers is dying of AIDs. After this Neil admits that for the first time he was bothered by his deviant line of work and that now he has seen the dangers that he is exposing himself to and had a glimpse into what could happen to him if he contracted the deadly disease he has decided to stop prostituting himself in favour of a 'normal' job. However, following his first day of working in a fast food restaurant Neil is unable to resist the temptation of prostitution and allows himself to be picked up by a strange man who drives Neil back to his house before brutally raping him.
    This 'punishment rape' in Mysterious Skin appears to punish Neil for two reasons, firstly for initially taking the deviant path of prostitution and secondly for not taking the opportunity that he had to escape it. As previously mentioned, here the male rape is yet again represented as something that the victim brought upon himself by taking a dangerous risk and putting himself in an unsafe situation that would not occur in the everyday lives of  'normal' men in society. The rape could therefore be justified as an arguably deserved punishment for Neil's inability to resist the enticement of deviance; had Neil taken the warnings that he was subjected to more seriously then his rape would have been completely avoided.

   It is important to note that throughout Mysterious Skin Neil is always depicted as an object of sexual lust and desire. We first see this character at eight years old, masturbating to his mum having sex with her boyfriend as his voiceover discusses Neil's paedophilic relationship with his Little League baseball coach. Neil continues to be heavily sexualised for the duration of the film, with almost every other character lusting over him, and to some degree this representation even continues whilst he is being raped. The scene begins with him being aggressively ordered to snort cocaine and strip by the unnamed male client. This 'client' quickly becomes more intimidating and forceful as the situation clearly crosses the boundary from a consensual encounter into something that Neil no longer agrees with. Despite the fact that the audience are now aware that Neil is in a dangerous and frightening  position, the camera continues to linger on his naked body as this 'client' forces Neil onto the bed (Figure 4). Nudity is conventionally very brief during any rape scene, especially male rape, so it is significant that Mysterious Skin seems to relish in drawing attention to the Neil's fully naked body as an extension to an already heavily-sexualised character. It is also interesting to consider that throughout the rape, Neil's rapist is referring to him as a 'slut',  a sexually derogative term that is normally only used against women. This effeminate term of abuse could arguably reinforce Neil's loss of masculinity as a result of falling victim to male rape but  it also serves as yet another aid to the continued sexualisation of his character as the word 'slut' is typically known for its sexual connotations.

     As well as showing more nudity than any other male rape scene that has been discussed in this dissertation, this representation is also much more graphic. After being forced onto the bed Neil escapes into the bathroom and here the camera focuses on the fear in Neil's face as the 'client' breaks down the bathroom door and violently rapes Neil over the bath. Director Gregg Araki exploits this disturbing scene with voyeuristic and claustrophobic camera angles which traps the audience in the bathroom, forced to witness the full, brutal rape yet unable to do anything to help. In a way this vivid technique passes feelings of responsibility and guilt onto the audience, which makes it all the more harrowing to watch. Dominique Russell states that 'de-subjectification, abstraction and focus on spectatorship' are traditionally the biggest part in the representation of male rape in cinema (Russell, 2010, p.175), this suggests that the focus is never directly, or graphically, on the rape itself but rather the surrounding issues. Mysterious Skin is therefore revolutionary in the way that it graphically shows every aspect of the rape, from the victim's initial fear to the rapist's final climax, and this is what makes it so disturbing and horrifying for the audience. It has been argued that 'male rape exists in its viewing and it is the witnessing that becomes, in the end, as traumatising as the act - by watching it one is forced to recognise the inherent vulnerability of the male body itself,' (Russell, 2010, p.175) this suggests that simply being forced to watch the rape of another man is equally as traumatising as it is to be the victim. This concept is also considered in the 1970s film Deliverance as it is Bobby who is the victim of male rape but during this scene the camera equally focuses on the trauma of Bobby's friend Ed (Jon Voight), who is forced to look on. This sequence suggests that Ed is just as much as a victim as Bobby is merely by witnessing the sexual violation of a male body.  
     A final significant point to consider with regard to the graphic nature of the scene as well as the sexualisation of Neil being raped is Gregg Araki's bizarre inclusion of the cinematic 'money shot'. Although this term originally stems from the explicit shots included in contemporary porn, it holds the same metaphoric meaning within mainstream cinema as a reference to any depiction of fluids following a sex scene which serves as a confirmation for the audience that a sexual act has taken place. When used it is intended to be a 'measure of pleasure, and the 'reality' of what we have just witnessed - the final irrefutable proof that 'real' sex did take place' (Burston, 1995, p.4), in Mysterious Skin this 'proof' is represented through the focus on the blood streaming out of Neil's injured head as his rapist reaches climax (Figure 5). The heavy focus on this blood, that almost appears to be coming out of Neil's mouth, at the same time as his rapist reaches the height of sexual pleasure is not only a further reinforcement of forcing the film's audience into an uncomfortable viewing, it also implies that Araki had intended the conventional cinematic meaning to be applied to this sequence. The inclusion of a 'money shot' in a scene of sexual violence is an interesting directorial choice and it could be argued that applying traditionally pornographic elements to this scene further fuels the sexual representation of Neil, even when he is seen at the height of sexual disempowerment. 

                Although it appears that Mysterious Skin's graphic and harrowing representation of male rape is progressive in the conventionally trivial representations found in cinema, the rape still appears to be arguably justified. It is important to reinforce that this rape is represented as Neil's punishment for his deviant lifestyle as a prostitute and for ignoring multiple warnings about how dangerous it is. The fact that Neil willingly went into the rapist's home with the intention of having a sexual liaison with him also creates an issue and potential justification, with the film's IMDB.com message board even having a debate entitled 'Was 'the rape' truly rape?' In addition to this is the added matter of Neil being gay. It is argued that for many men the shame of rape comes from the stigma and association with homosexuality and although in reality rape is an equally traumatising experience for any man, regardless of their sexuality, there is a commonly held social belief that the rape of a gay man is 'not so bad' (Scarce, 1997, p.120) and much more trivial in comparison to the rape of a straight man or, above all,  a woman. These issues are a common source of debate around the concept of male rape and work to reinforce the idea that there is yet to be an unjustifiable, un-trivialised male rape represented in cinema.  It is also key to acknowledge that as the rape scene occurs towards the very end of the film, there is no time devoted to Neil's emotional response following the rape. Once he gets home that night the audience sees him cry in his bathroom but after this there is no real development. Similarly to Pulp Fiction, this leaves it unclear whether or not Neil changes his deviant lifestyle as a result of his 'punishment rape', which suggests that his rape did not occur in order to give the film a moral ending and is also in fact rather gratuitous. This lack of development or meaning after the rape questions whether or not it was necessary to include it in the film, as it does not serve as a conclusive function to plot or character development. The way that the audience are not told anything about Neil's life after being raped does imply that the scene could have been added to the narrative purely for the shock tactics and to 'spice things up' with no great consideration or threat to the wider plot. This lack of character development after being a victim of male rape could be considered a trivialisation of a traumatising event, implying that even though some films are willing to show these harrowing and disturbing scenes, the significance of a male rape is not enough to warrant any more than a few shocks and definitely not something to further develop as a serious or emotional issue.

Conclusion:

                To conclude, the representation of male rape persists to be highly trivialised in cinema. We are yet to see the unjustifiable brutal rape of a man by a woman, with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo being the only film that even depicts this as a possibility. Women raping men is otherwise represented as a source of comedy and this is a harmful reinforcement of the social belief that women can't rape men. The representation of male-on-male rape in cinema is relatively scarce and when it does occur it is conventionally very brief and considered to be a trivial part of the narrative; even in the more graphic scenes, such as the one in Mysterious Skin, male rape appears to only be used to shock the audience and is never a devoted focal point of the wider narrative. Male rape is still something that cinematic victims do not appear to dwell on, with there being somewhat of a 'take it like a man' approach to the victim's response with the emotional and psychological damage of rape being completely ignored and following the initial rape scene there is little or no mention of the rape from the victim or other characters. This lack of realistic or devoted representations of male rape in cinema is a harmful and dangerous influence on modern society as it perpetuates the commonly-held misguided assumptions about  the possibilities of men being raped along with the 'right' way a male rape victim should respond. The online comment that was made about Marsellus in Pulp Fiction being likened as the correct, 'smile and move on', way to handle being raped is a key example of how cinema is reinforcing negative stereotypes about male rape and its victims and denies victims any form of emotional, 'pansy-like' pain. The fact that in none of these representations the male rape is reported to the police is an important point as it suggests that being raped is something to be ashamed of and once it happens it should never be spoken of again. It also  reinforces the macho response of male rape victims resorting to physical violence in order to get some kind of justice. In addition to this, it is incredibly significant that in the cinematic representations male rape is not shown as something unavoidable that happens in everyday life, where any man can be the victim. In every example of male-on-male rape the victim is seen to have put themselves in an preventable, dangerous situation; either by committing a crime that puts them in prison - an environment where male rape seems to be an expected and acceptable part of an inmate's routine, or by indulging in a deviant lifestyle that ultimately leads them to a 'well-deserved punishment rape'. Placing male rape as something that only happens to people who knowingly cross the parameters of 'normal' life distances it as an issue for the audience to even consider and places it as something that will not happen to the average, everyday man - a dangerous concept to be so widely broadcast.

         Male rape is one of the most underreported crimes in the World due to the shame and social stigma that surrounds it but if contemporary cinema were to give more realistic depictions of rape then it could challenge these negative assumptions and instead provide important support for victims, rather than trivialising a traumatic event as something that is either funny or justified. When male rape is represented in cinema it comes at no cost to the film's wider narrative and seems to be included solely for the shock of showing something that is considered so taboo. It can be argued that male rape is considered the height of perversity and deviance, thus the film gains credibility by merely including such scenes despite not developing the issue once the rape has taken place. It therefore appears that 'cinematic male-on-male rape seems to occupy a realm beyond female rape and beyond male violence as a kind of ultimate and almost unimaginable violation.' (Russell, 2010, p.174)