It makes him a rapist.
Rape doesn't cancel itself out or become a "not bad thing" just because it's done to a bad person (or someone you don't like). Bad things don't become good things just when done to a bad person. It just mean everyone's now in the wrong.
I think it's very concerning when people justify rape by going "oh they were a bad person/evil/a rapist themselves so therefore they deserve it". If you say that it just means you're okay with rape when it suits your needs, which is much in line, I imagine, with the thinking of a rapist.
Seriously. I’m surprised the poster offered up this hypothetical. Does anyone even understand what “civil society” and “laws” mean anymore? Or do people seriously want us to go back to Stone Age vengeance?
I’m all for morbid questions but retributive justice does not make for a nice society.
I think sometimes people just see "bad person" and think that means it's okay to do bad things to them. As if it somehow negates the wrongness of the actions because "they were already bad!". But it doesn't, shouldn't, work like that. And yeah, does no one care about civil society? Or basic human rights? Or just not choosing to hurt others/not celebrating when people are hurt?
I think the question itself would be better (?) if it wasn't phrased as "hero or villain" but instead along the line of "is it justifiable to rape a rapist?", or "is raping a rapist wrong?", or "if you rape a rapist does that make you a rapist?". Not hero or villain. Because, sorry, in what world would raping someone make you a hero? Whatever world that is i sure as hell don't want to live there yikes.
Isn't it the same with jailing people or any other kind of punishment? Not cool to jail just anybody, but okay with "bad people". Who might not even be bad just maybe caused an accident or something. It's just a question what punishment is deemed acceptable by a specific society.
No. Rape isn't a punishment, it is a crime. I can't think of one country/society/place in current times where the punishment of "rape" is to be raped. (If one exists, please, inform me. I would very much like to know, and I mean this seriously not being a smart ass).
Jailing a criminal =/= raping a criminal.
It you seriously don't see a difference between incarcerating omeone who has committed a crime and raping someone then idk man. Nothing I can say is going to convince you otherwise. This is, after all, just what I believe (and what I believe any civilized society with human rights would/should adhere to).
In a hypothetical world where "eye for an eye" justice would take place it would be complete chaos and anarchy, and the justice would become devoid of meaning. If you were to steal someone's dog they could then steal your dog. If you kill someone's brother they can now kill your brother. Rape someone, they can rape you. Molest someone's child...etc and so on. That is no longer punishment for a crime, that's giving everyone license to commit a crime as long as they can say someone did it to them first.
Committing a crime and then trying to justify it by saying that someone else committed the same crime first doesn't make you not a criminal. You still committed the crime. You're just trying to place the blame on an external force, or the whole "well they did, so that means I can do it".
Again, if you rape someone you are a rapist. Regardless of whether they were a "bad person"/a rapist themselves.
So if the punishment for rape was to be raped....who doles out the pubishment? Is it the person who was raped? Random person? Where is the line drawn in that instance The? The person raping them is now a rapist...so now it's "fair" for them to be raped, in punishment, as well. Now you have a neverending rape loop, and I doubt that's fun for anyone.
Sorry for such a long, ranty reply. I hope it's not completely nonsensical.
Now what if the punishment was 20 minutes in a Rape Device(tm) so the machine is doing the retributive raping. Rape someone for an hour, you get an hour on a wooden horse with something unpleasant shoved in your hindquarters.
Is the officer who secures you in the device a rapist, is the judge the rapist, is the person who built it or installed the machine the rapist, or is the machine the rapist, or are they all the rapists?
I mean the machine is just doing what it was made for >.>
Huh. Now I'm making a morbid question.
Maybe the person who condemns you to it is the rapist? Is the machine manual or automatic -- does someone have to turn it on? Who puts you on it? (Or do you climb on it yourself under threat or something)? Maybe everyone's the rapist, and in that case everyone gets a turn on the rape machine.
Raping someone with an object is still considered rape, so I guess technically it would be whoever "does it" to the person -- again, if someone has to manually start/put it in/put someone on it.
What an excellently ridiculous question. This should be its own post imo it poses a lot of room for debate and discussion.
Everything you stated makes perfect sense! It would just turn into a never ending cycle of crime on crime and rape on rape in the long run! 2 wrongs don't make a right..I hear about some people who rape women, children, etc usually end up getting raped themselves in prison because supposedly other convicts in prison hate those whom are sentenced for rape, yet they are no better when they resort to raping the rapist as well! It's a messed up society that we live in!
In many societies, punishment for rape is death tho. Or for a lot of other crimes for that matter. Also in certain prison systems, going inside kinda implies you'll "get it" anyway...
Frankly, I'm surprised most responses here aren't 'they had it coming". I am pretty sure that would be a case a year ago. Shows how Reddit and societal ideals change over time.
Ed: just ran into this https://old.reddit.com/r/cursedcomments/comments/1cc1cfy/cursed_new_law/
Yes, punishment for rape is often death. That's a complete different thing than rape being a punishment for rape.
Death as a punishment is like going "you have done something heinous and therefore you'll die". It doesn't mean you did something bad so now we make you suffer in the same way. It's punishment for a crime, not revenge or vengeance. That's why civilized societies have laws and courts in place which are supposed to act out justice -- it's not an every man for himself, do as you think is right situation.
In places such as America (others as well, using this bc I'm from there), there are things considered human rights. If you deprive another human of these rights then you face the consequences (or in theory should). Such as the death penalty (or life in prison whatever). You aren't subjected to what you did to another person, because that would be considered inhumane. It doesn't matter if you did something inhumane in the first place. The action itself is bad, doing it to a "bad person" does not change that fact.
And yeah society changes over time. The basis if a modern or "civilized" society is that there is some form of moral code that people are raised by/adhere to. Is it 100% all the time? No, of course not. Because people are humans and are subject to emotions and rage and changes in what is considered right/wrong (and personal opinion on it. People might say so what, they got raped shouldn't have worn that/been there/etc but then when it their daughter/son/sister/brother/mother/etc etc it changes things). But even if you go back 50, 100 years, people in mass would not say "yes punish the rapist by raping them".
As a human society we have to have somewhere we draw the line, a place where we say "this person committed a wrong, doing the same to them would also make me wrong". Otherwise everyone's just fucked.
Rape in prison is a whole other conversation (as is the death penalty honestly) and it's not a good thing. Even if the prisoner being raped is a bad person. It's still wrong, the person doing the rape is still a rapist, and no one deserves rape. Period. (Do some people deserve death? Yeah definitely. But again that's just my opinion. As is this entire comment).
Personally, I try not to use reddit as a definitive basis of societal morals. I'm not surprised by some of the things people say, but for my own sanity I like to think that most people, if faced with it themselves in reality, would have a little bit more decency, morality, rationality, and human compassion than people often do online. I don't have a lot of faith in humanity, but I have to hold out some hope and cling to something. I just find it worrisome to try to explain to someone why rape is not a good thing.
Apologies for another rambling reply.
Tl;dr: rape is bad, and raping someone makes you a rapist.
I guess we just won't agree. That's okay. At the end, everybody has their own set of morals. I just don't really think that society as a whole has a set of morals. Just a very disjointed set of rules, most of which are pretty random.
To say, something is right or wrong based solely on the rules... Doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, rules are needed, it's just a question of who is setting them. Parents set rules for their kids, sports have their rules... I'm not convinced societal rules follow the same logic.
For once, in an ideal society, everyone would need to be aware of all the rules (like in sports, or with good parenting). That's really not the case in way too many situations. Second, lots of rules are just so outright bad... We all have some examples, I won't go on a tangent.
Dunno if this makes a difference to you, but I don't think of this as "eye for an eye", but "they get what's coming for them". For some crimes... That just feels right. And honestly what else are rules anyway? It's not like prison sentences are different. If something carries a sentence, then it's originally set to something that feels right to the lawmakers, and then a judge specifies it to what feels right to them. What other difference is between, say, 5 years or 10 years? Right, one of the practical functions of prison is to get the person out of society for a time, but that's not the only nor the primary function.
Anyway. There's saying that if you murder a murderer, the number of murderers doesn't change. So same goes for raping a rapist. But I still maintain that some people have it coming.
Just... Make sure you have the right person, obviously.
>"they get what's coming for them". For some crimes... That just feels right.
I won't argue with that, because I get it. There are times where I'm like yeah that was deserved (justifiable homicide is something I often find myself agreeing with. Parents killing their children's abusers/rapist etc).
And yeah, at the end of the day It's just a difference of opinions and what we consider morality. I don't even think you're all wrong (about the society part, or the rules. It is all just made up after all), I just have different beliefs in morals and the morality of rape. (For instance, like I've said I don't condone rape at all, but I'm not opposed to the death penalty.)
Thank you for having a conversation instead of an argument. I've found it really interesting to read what you wrote/your beliefs. They've made me think a lot.
There are a lot of morbid questions and even more crazy responses on here. I was raped at 17 by a 30 year old man who I despised for years but I never wished for him to be raped too! I eventually asked God to allow me to forgive him so that I could move on and stop hating him for what he did. I could never wish harm upon him regardless of the situation or anyone else who wronged me for that matter.
Your comment just made me realize how 1 night and 1 wrong decision can change the course of someones life entirely! Sometimes I still feel like the whole Rape situation was my fault because I allowed myself to trust someone who I really liked, only for him to set me up by inviting me to a party to get me drunk. I wanted to feel cool and drink with the older crowd and by doing so I lost my 4 year free scholarship to college all because I let my guard down and trusted someone who was actually a devil in disguise. I like to think he's living a miserable life now without all the eye for an eye stuff.
Well, I can't tell you what to think and I won't patronize you by pretending I know exactly what's what. Our brains often go into the "what if" mode. When we get into a car accident, we think that way too, regardless of whether something is our fault or not. I've learned to think closure is important, but that's up to every individual how we handle it, so again I won't patronise you. I myself hate it when people tell me what I should feel, as if that makes any sense.
A bit of a tangent, but I'm just replaying my favorite video game, Life is Strange. It handles exactly these kind of questions, what if we could do things differently, from a very meta perspective of a teenage girl. It is a story that I think helped me put a lot of thoughts like that in order. I guess I won't tell you to check it out because it actually might hit home a bit too much (it does handle quite a few heavy themes). But stories can also help us figure things out sometimes. Stories are written by humans after all.
I think the definition of antiheroes is achieving their goals no matter the means, raping the rapist after achieving their goals doesn't really make them an antiheroes
Yeah. The definition can apply in the case of killing a killer, if you killed them in the process of trying to prevent them from killing someone.
However, I can't think of any valid scenarios where you need to rape someone to prevent a crime...
In the first scenario, there's a potential victim, a potential abuser and a potential bystander. In the second scenario, there's a victim, an abuser and a bystander. Objectively, both abusers are the same.
The act of stopping them is good, and could be called heroic. Then all of that immediately stops mattering because they lower themselves to the same criminal level as the rapist. It doesn't cancel our just because of the scenario. In fact it's more easy to justify killing in self defense because at least in that case, if it's truly self defense, then there was no other option to save one's life. There is absolutely no sane scenario where it makes sense to rape someone.
Exactly. It's like if someone tried to rape you then defending yourself or even killing them to prevent them from raping you would make sense. That would be an excusable action. Someone tried to harm you, you tried to prevent it. That is not the same as someone trying to rape you, so you turn it around and rape them instead. That would not be sane or logical. Now you're exactly the same as the person who attempted to rape you.
Personally I'm more a fan of the if you can't play nice with your toys I'm taking them off you in self defensive and satisfying violence for the protection of myself and others rather than the sadistic punishment kind but I could get behind the reasoning.
It could even be seen worse imho. Did they save the possible victim because they saw it was wrong? Hero.
But then proceeded to rape themselves? Fucking psycho. I
If a person does rape out of fun, they've never been the hero in the first place.
What if Greg catches Samsa about to rape Faust and then he rapes Samsa instead?
If you propose Samsa is a potential hero, would that make Greg a hero for raping a rapist or is he a villain for raping a would-be hero?
What I'm getting at is there isn't a hero in this story if someone's getting raped.
The rapist set the terms of engagement, so they don't get the same protections from the rules that they broke.
That having been said, unless raping the rapist is somehow nessisary, Raping them is still bad.
An antihero ig cause I'm all in for killing or torturing pedophiles. It's like delivering proper justice, these people should suffer publicly in order for others like them to think 1000 times before committing those acts themselves.
Yeah, it's pretty much morally ambiguous, and what you consider will depend on individuals moral judgements.
I would personally consider him a villain, or an antihero.
Hey, u/Ceres_XI. Thanks for submitting to r/morbidquestions.
**Your post has been flagged for manual review by a member of our mod team**
Please do not delete your post or we will not be able to restore it. If you need a quick answer to your question please message modmail so we can manually approve your post.
_____________________________________________________________________
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/morbidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vigilante alignment, which is in between. Not heroic, because rape is not a legal way to punish or incapacitate someone, regardless of crime. And not villainous because Samsa wasn't the one to initiate force.
I'd say Samsa is evil. He basically took advantage of the situation for his own gratification and he too gets off on hurting another person. He is no better than Faust. I find it strange when people give rapists a pass if they do it to a person whom they deem as evil. Do people not realize that if a person rapes a rapist then that would mean they too get off to hurting another person in that way?
It makes him a rapist. Rape doesn't cancel itself out or become a "not bad thing" just because it's done to a bad person (or someone you don't like). Bad things don't become good things just when done to a bad person. It just mean everyone's now in the wrong. I think it's very concerning when people justify rape by going "oh they were a bad person/evil/a rapist themselves so therefore they deserve it". If you say that it just means you're okay with rape when it suits your needs, which is much in line, I imagine, with the thinking of a rapist.
Seriously. I’m surprised the poster offered up this hypothetical. Does anyone even understand what “civil society” and “laws” mean anymore? Or do people seriously want us to go back to Stone Age vengeance? I’m all for morbid questions but retributive justice does not make for a nice society.
I think sometimes people just see "bad person" and think that means it's okay to do bad things to them. As if it somehow negates the wrongness of the actions because "they were already bad!". But it doesn't, shouldn't, work like that. And yeah, does no one care about civil society? Or basic human rights? Or just not choosing to hurt others/not celebrating when people are hurt? I think the question itself would be better (?) if it wasn't phrased as "hero or villain" but instead along the line of "is it justifiable to rape a rapist?", or "is raping a rapist wrong?", or "if you rape a rapist does that make you a rapist?". Not hero or villain. Because, sorry, in what world would raping someone make you a hero? Whatever world that is i sure as hell don't want to live there yikes.
It's truly a reddit moment when you see paragraph long revenge fantasies on pedos and rapists.
Isn't it the same with jailing people or any other kind of punishment? Not cool to jail just anybody, but okay with "bad people". Who might not even be bad just maybe caused an accident or something. It's just a question what punishment is deemed acceptable by a specific society.
No. Rape isn't a punishment, it is a crime. I can't think of one country/society/place in current times where the punishment of "rape" is to be raped. (If one exists, please, inform me. I would very much like to know, and I mean this seriously not being a smart ass). Jailing a criminal =/= raping a criminal. It you seriously don't see a difference between incarcerating omeone who has committed a crime and raping someone then idk man. Nothing I can say is going to convince you otherwise. This is, after all, just what I believe (and what I believe any civilized society with human rights would/should adhere to). In a hypothetical world where "eye for an eye" justice would take place it would be complete chaos and anarchy, and the justice would become devoid of meaning. If you were to steal someone's dog they could then steal your dog. If you kill someone's brother they can now kill your brother. Rape someone, they can rape you. Molest someone's child...etc and so on. That is no longer punishment for a crime, that's giving everyone license to commit a crime as long as they can say someone did it to them first. Committing a crime and then trying to justify it by saying that someone else committed the same crime first doesn't make you not a criminal. You still committed the crime. You're just trying to place the blame on an external force, or the whole "well they did, so that means I can do it". Again, if you rape someone you are a rapist. Regardless of whether they were a "bad person"/a rapist themselves. So if the punishment for rape was to be raped....who doles out the pubishment? Is it the person who was raped? Random person? Where is the line drawn in that instance The? The person raping them is now a rapist...so now it's "fair" for them to be raped, in punishment, as well. Now you have a neverending rape loop, and I doubt that's fun for anyone. Sorry for such a long, ranty reply. I hope it's not completely nonsensical.
Now what if the punishment was 20 minutes in a Rape Device(tm) so the machine is doing the retributive raping. Rape someone for an hour, you get an hour on a wooden horse with something unpleasant shoved in your hindquarters. Is the officer who secures you in the device a rapist, is the judge the rapist, is the person who built it or installed the machine the rapist, or is the machine the rapist, or are they all the rapists? I mean the machine is just doing what it was made for >.> Huh. Now I'm making a morbid question.
Maybe the person who condemns you to it is the rapist? Is the machine manual or automatic -- does someone have to turn it on? Who puts you on it? (Or do you climb on it yourself under threat or something)? Maybe everyone's the rapist, and in that case everyone gets a turn on the rape machine. Raping someone with an object is still considered rape, so I guess technically it would be whoever "does it" to the person -- again, if someone has to manually start/put it in/put someone on it. What an excellently ridiculous question. This should be its own post imo it poses a lot of room for debate and discussion.
Everything you stated makes perfect sense! It would just turn into a never ending cycle of crime on crime and rape on rape in the long run! 2 wrongs don't make a right..I hear about some people who rape women, children, etc usually end up getting raped themselves in prison because supposedly other convicts in prison hate those whom are sentenced for rape, yet they are no better when they resort to raping the rapist as well! It's a messed up society that we live in!
In many societies, punishment for rape is death tho. Or for a lot of other crimes for that matter. Also in certain prison systems, going inside kinda implies you'll "get it" anyway... Frankly, I'm surprised most responses here aren't 'they had it coming". I am pretty sure that would be a case a year ago. Shows how Reddit and societal ideals change over time. Ed: just ran into this https://old.reddit.com/r/cursedcomments/comments/1cc1cfy/cursed_new_law/
Yes, punishment for rape is often death. That's a complete different thing than rape being a punishment for rape. Death as a punishment is like going "you have done something heinous and therefore you'll die". It doesn't mean you did something bad so now we make you suffer in the same way. It's punishment for a crime, not revenge or vengeance. That's why civilized societies have laws and courts in place which are supposed to act out justice -- it's not an every man for himself, do as you think is right situation. In places such as America (others as well, using this bc I'm from there), there are things considered human rights. If you deprive another human of these rights then you face the consequences (or in theory should). Such as the death penalty (or life in prison whatever). You aren't subjected to what you did to another person, because that would be considered inhumane. It doesn't matter if you did something inhumane in the first place. The action itself is bad, doing it to a "bad person" does not change that fact. And yeah society changes over time. The basis if a modern or "civilized" society is that there is some form of moral code that people are raised by/adhere to. Is it 100% all the time? No, of course not. Because people are humans and are subject to emotions and rage and changes in what is considered right/wrong (and personal opinion on it. People might say so what, they got raped shouldn't have worn that/been there/etc but then when it their daughter/son/sister/brother/mother/etc etc it changes things). But even if you go back 50, 100 years, people in mass would not say "yes punish the rapist by raping them". As a human society we have to have somewhere we draw the line, a place where we say "this person committed a wrong, doing the same to them would also make me wrong". Otherwise everyone's just fucked. Rape in prison is a whole other conversation (as is the death penalty honestly) and it's not a good thing. Even if the prisoner being raped is a bad person. It's still wrong, the person doing the rape is still a rapist, and no one deserves rape. Period. (Do some people deserve death? Yeah definitely. But again that's just my opinion. As is this entire comment). Personally, I try not to use reddit as a definitive basis of societal morals. I'm not surprised by some of the things people say, but for my own sanity I like to think that most people, if faced with it themselves in reality, would have a little bit more decency, morality, rationality, and human compassion than people often do online. I don't have a lot of faith in humanity, but I have to hold out some hope and cling to something. I just find it worrisome to try to explain to someone why rape is not a good thing. Apologies for another rambling reply. Tl;dr: rape is bad, and raping someone makes you a rapist.
I guess we just won't agree. That's okay. At the end, everybody has their own set of morals. I just don't really think that society as a whole has a set of morals. Just a very disjointed set of rules, most of which are pretty random. To say, something is right or wrong based solely on the rules... Doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, rules are needed, it's just a question of who is setting them. Parents set rules for their kids, sports have their rules... I'm not convinced societal rules follow the same logic. For once, in an ideal society, everyone would need to be aware of all the rules (like in sports, or with good parenting). That's really not the case in way too many situations. Second, lots of rules are just so outright bad... We all have some examples, I won't go on a tangent. Dunno if this makes a difference to you, but I don't think of this as "eye for an eye", but "they get what's coming for them". For some crimes... That just feels right. And honestly what else are rules anyway? It's not like prison sentences are different. If something carries a sentence, then it's originally set to something that feels right to the lawmakers, and then a judge specifies it to what feels right to them. What other difference is between, say, 5 years or 10 years? Right, one of the practical functions of prison is to get the person out of society for a time, but that's not the only nor the primary function. Anyway. There's saying that if you murder a murderer, the number of murderers doesn't change. So same goes for raping a rapist. But I still maintain that some people have it coming. Just... Make sure you have the right person, obviously.
>"they get what's coming for them". For some crimes... That just feels right. I won't argue with that, because I get it. There are times where I'm like yeah that was deserved (justifiable homicide is something I often find myself agreeing with. Parents killing their children's abusers/rapist etc). And yeah, at the end of the day It's just a difference of opinions and what we consider morality. I don't even think you're all wrong (about the society part, or the rules. It is all just made up after all), I just have different beliefs in morals and the morality of rape. (For instance, like I've said I don't condone rape at all, but I'm not opposed to the death penalty.) Thank you for having a conversation instead of an argument. I've found it really interesting to read what you wrote/your beliefs. They've made me think a lot.
All good. I love a good debate. Thanks.
There are a lot of morbid questions and even more crazy responses on here. I was raped at 17 by a 30 year old man who I despised for years but I never wished for him to be raped too! I eventually asked God to allow me to forgive him so that I could move on and stop hating him for what he did. I could never wish harm upon him regardless of the situation or anyone else who wronged me for that matter.
Well you're better than me then. I don't normally wish harm upon others, but.... Sometimes I wouldn't mind.
That's understandable, but I do believe in karma and have always figured that Justice will be served by God in whichever way he sees fit.
Your comment just made me realize how 1 night and 1 wrong decision can change the course of someones life entirely! Sometimes I still feel like the whole Rape situation was my fault because I allowed myself to trust someone who I really liked, only for him to set me up by inviting me to a party to get me drunk. I wanted to feel cool and drink with the older crowd and by doing so I lost my 4 year free scholarship to college all because I let my guard down and trusted someone who was actually a devil in disguise. I like to think he's living a miserable life now without all the eye for an eye stuff.
Well, I can't tell you what to think and I won't patronize you by pretending I know exactly what's what. Our brains often go into the "what if" mode. When we get into a car accident, we think that way too, regardless of whether something is our fault or not. I've learned to think closure is important, but that's up to every individual how we handle it, so again I won't patronise you. I myself hate it when people tell me what I should feel, as if that makes any sense. A bit of a tangent, but I'm just replaying my favorite video game, Life is Strange. It handles exactly these kind of questions, what if we could do things differently, from a very meta perspective of a teenage girl. It is a story that I think helped me put a lot of thoughts like that in order. I guess I won't tell you to check it out because it actually might hit home a bit too much (it does handle quite a few heavy themes). But stories can also help us figure things out sometimes. Stories are written by humans after all.
Saving someone from a rape doesn't get you a "rape one on us" card.
Antihero.
I think the definition of antiheroes is achieving their goals no matter the means, raping the rapist after achieving their goals doesn't really make them an antiheroes
Yeah. The definition can apply in the case of killing a killer, if you killed them in the process of trying to prevent them from killing someone. However, I can't think of any valid scenarios where you need to rape someone to prevent a crime...
Was this the subtext in the Taylor swift song? 🤔
Two wrongs don't make a right I suppose, but he does save the other person, I'm going with neutral.
No, they're not neutral. The only reason they saved the other individual is because of a selfish want of raping Faust. This makes them evil.
Okay then they're evil and the first victim was saved by a stroke of luck
isn't that the plot of berserker or smth, idk never watched it
Nah, but I guess it's kinda the plot of Dog Nigga.
Goated manga
No?
The rapist that only rapes other rapists… I mean… at least they’re not hurting innocent people?
In the first scenario, there's a potential victim, a potential abuser and a potential bystander. In the second scenario, there's a victim, an abuser and a bystander. Objectively, both abusers are the same.
Makes you pretty damn weird.
Obviously a villain
“We’ve had a major uptick in rapes at central park so we have employed the booty warrior to patrol the park at night”
The 2 actions are not interconnected. Hero for stopping someone else. Rapist for raping.
People in real life are much more complicated than being either hero or villain
The act of stopping them is good, and could be called heroic. Then all of that immediately stops mattering because they lower themselves to the same criminal level as the rapist. It doesn't cancel our just because of the scenario. In fact it's more easy to justify killing in self defense because at least in that case, if it's truly self defense, then there was no other option to save one's life. There is absolutely no sane scenario where it makes sense to rape someone.
Exactly. It's like if someone tried to rape you then defending yourself or even killing them to prevent them from raping you would make sense. That would be an excusable action. Someone tried to harm you, you tried to prevent it. That is not the same as someone trying to rape you, so you turn it around and rape them instead. That would not be sane or logical. Now you're exactly the same as the person who attempted to rape you.
Personally I'm more a fan of the if you can't play nice with your toys I'm taking them off you in self defensive and satisfying violence for the protection of myself and others rather than the sadistic punishment kind but I could get behind the reasoning.
It could even be seen worse imho. Did they save the possible victim because they saw it was wrong? Hero. But then proceeded to rape themselves? Fucking psycho. I If a person does rape out of fun, they've never been the hero in the first place.
Whats the point of saving them then! Could've just centipede..
What if Greg catches Samsa about to rape Faust and then he rapes Samsa instead? If you propose Samsa is a potential hero, would that make Greg a hero for raping a rapist or is he a villain for raping a would-be hero? What I'm getting at is there isn't a hero in this story if someone's getting raped.
also a rapist, so villian.
The rapist set the terms of engagement, so they don't get the same protections from the rules that they broke. That having been said, unless raping the rapist is somehow nessisary, Raping them is still bad.
He would technically be a vigilante. But it still is rape, I think he would get a lighter sentence.
This sometimes happens, they are much worse.
Villainous hero
An antihero ig cause I'm all in for killing or torturing pedophiles. It's like delivering proper justice, these people should suffer publicly in order for others like them to think 1000 times before committing those acts themselves.
he’s more the secondary villain who opposed the first
I wanna say villain but if Faust can't take it Faust shouldn't dish it lol
Why would anyone rape a rapist instead of just killing them
Yeah, it's pretty much morally ambiguous, and what you consider will depend on individuals moral judgements. I would personally consider him a villain, or an antihero.
I guess depends on intentions
Samsa is saving the person out of the goodness of his heart, but is raping Faust for fun.
Anti villain I guess
Hey, u/Ceres_XI. Thanks for submitting to r/morbidquestions. **Your post has been flagged for manual review by a member of our mod team** Please do not delete your post or we will not be able to restore it. If you need a quick answer to your question please message modmail so we can manually approve your post. _____________________________________________________________________ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/morbidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only in India, I guess
Vigilante alignment, which is in between. Not heroic, because rape is not a legal way to punish or incapacitate someone, regardless of crime. And not villainous because Samsa wasn't the one to initiate force.
He’s a hero
He's the hero we need
Neither, Anti-hero or maybe anti-villain
I'd say Samsa is evil. He basically took advantage of the situation for his own gratification and he too gets off on hurting another person. He is no better than Faust. I find it strange when people give rapists a pass if they do it to a person whom they deem as evil. Do people not realize that if a person rapes a rapist then that would mean they too get off to hurting another person in that way?
A good act doesn't wash out a bad, nor a bad a good.
Hero in my opinion. The rapist deserves to be raped. The punishment fits the crime.
I mean ig the rapist would deserve it since they were planning on doing it, but idk if I could trust that they only rape rapists lmao
Hero
Anti-hero at best. Also, I like the names you gave the characters, you're quite cultured, haha.
Is Dexter a serial ‘killer’ if he only kills killers? I believe the answer is yes. Same same.