28 Days Later...

Scott Hardie | July 2, 2003
What I really want to discuss is a general subject, but since it has to do with a third-act plot twist in "28 Days Later...", I thought I'd give you a spoiler warning. It's a good film, so see it and don't let me dissuade you.

For those forging ahead, what happens in the third act is that the plague survivors come across a military outfit, all male. Before long, the men start acting like rapists toward the women, and it turns out they have the commander's consent: He promised them that he'd "deliver them women," and shortly thereafter they're literally ripping the women's clothes off, acting like animals.

First of all, I understand that these are fictional characters acting in service of a plot, and there are several other male characters who would never do such a thing. And I understand that there are plenty of documented cases of rape when army goons are left to their own in a lawless area, such as Vietnam. But I felt like cringing under the implication that all men become rapists when you remove them from society and deprive them of sex. I mean, by that point it has only been thirty days since society first began to fall! I've gone quite longer than that by now and I'm not ripping the clothes off of the first woman I meet. And sure, they're in a high-pressure situation, but I would think their rigid discipline would make them better able to remain chaste, not less.

Am I wrong about this? Would men quickly devolve into rapist brutes if you took away society and deprived them of sex for a month? Or is it only a few select assholes who would make the conversion? And as a man, should I be bothered by this view of my gender if it is false?

Erik Bates | July 2, 2003
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | July 2, 2003
[hidden by request]