one thing in Swordfish that bothered me was the scene where Jackman is forced at gunpoint to let a woman give him oral sex while he tries to hack into the defense department. 1

the oral sex is presented as distracting; it's a kind of sexy joke. but it's actually rape, is the thing. nonconsensual sex at gunpoint is rape.
which, the film doesn't realize at all because guys are supposed to always be willing to get oral sex from a sexy woman. even if he keeps saying no. even if he has to be forced into it at gunpoint.
there are plenty of really dicey things about the film (you're supposed to cheer at the end because the bad guy is using his billions to kill POC who you're told are terrorists.)
I feel like there's at least some limited awareness that there is some moral ambiguity in a lot of those instances. but there's absolutely no sense that Jackman has been raped or might be traumatized by being raped.
it really struck me wrong.
it's also part and parcel of the film's gratuitous and insistent misogyny (women used almost solely as decoration or victims.) the idea that sexual humiliation is funny or fine makes it hard to recognize rape, whether the victim is a woman or a man.
are there *any* movies that deal somewhat sensitively with a lead male character being raped?
in fact in Swordfish, after he's raped, like, a day later, another women without getting consent grabs his crotch, and he's okay with it which...seems like it strains credulity.
Shawshank Redemption has male rape scenes but I don't know that they're exactly thoughtful, and there's no mention of possible lingering trauma (at least not that I remember)

More from Society

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?