A 'rape glut' on TV: How viewers can respond

Recent graphic rape scenes on shows like ‘Game of Thrones’ have stirred viewer outrage. There are ways to change Hollywood's script about rape.

Danny Moloshok/Invision/AP­
Actress Viola Davis poses at The Rape Foundation in Beverly Hills, Calif., last September while attending a fundraiser. The star of the ABC show “How to Get Away With Murder” discussed her show at the benefit for the Rape Treatment Center, which she became acquainted with while researching for a role.

At a time when many colleges are working diligently to reduce rape on campuses, the entertainment industry has decided to give viewers more depictions of rape on TV shows, and especially brutal ones. A few television critics have even expressed disgust at this cultural “rape glut,” notably after scenes of shocking rapes on recent episodes of “Outlander” (Starz) and “Game of Thrones” (HBO). Another sign of outrage: Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri vowed she would no longer watch “Game of Thrones,” tweeting this comment: “Cumulative effect [of] violence & brutality took its toll.”

If enough viewers decided to boycott or complain about rape-explicit shows, that might help send a message to scriptwriters who take pride in pushing the limits of decency or who damage campaigns to stop rape in real life. But depictions of sexual violence have been around for millenniums in various forms of art. A more practical step for now would be to persuade the industry – short of government coercion – that most viewers prefer to contribute to current efforts at rape reduction by not watching fictional rape.

Another point of persuasion would be to discuss when, where, and how to depict rape, if at all. Can viewers be given better warnings of such “adult content”? How can children be better protected from particular shows? Should rape scenes be only on cable, late at night, or restricted to streaming services? And can such scenes not be gratuitous or used as flimsy and needless props in a story line?

An even more productive direction would be to ensure rape scenes, if absolutely integral to a narrative, show how victims can be supported and how they can recover their innocence. That can be a teachable moment.

Many women and men are able to heal after a rape, an experience that would be far more poignant and memorable to depict than a fleeting moment of horror. As a plot device, that might be both inspired and inspiring. Viewers would likely respond to shows that play to their finer sensitivities.

For those people who decry rape on campuses, in the military, or elsewhere, they need not be passive when a TV show depicts graphic sexual violence. Enough tweets or e-mails of complaints can influence a show’s producer, writer, or director. Ending a “culture of rape” will require reducing rape scenes in popular culture.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.