I am getting pretty sick of these movies that contain brutal rape scenes. People are chalking it up to art, but how many rape scenes do we really need? Did A Clockwork Orange not suffice for a lifetime of such “art” provided by rape? Are using women as objects, controlling them, and brutalizing them—sometimes to leave them for death—really that artful and beautiful that they need to be immortalized yet again on film?

Guess what, movie producers, directors, and especially you sadistic writers—all you have to do is find a woman or girl anywhere in the country every 90 seconds and bam, there is your art. Because a woman is raped that often—if not more often—every day. One in three women will be abused in her lifetime; I wonder if you think that 33% of your audience is really going to give a damn about your films, other than to avoid them in order to prevent a PTSD reaction?

When The Last House on the Left was remade, I was so sick to my stomach. Really? I thought, Not only was the original not enough—now we’re going to relive all of that rape and dismemberment yet again? Before that, there was also the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, and dozens of other films where rape is just a standard part of the torture. Today I learned that the grotesque Straw Dogs, which is centered around one of the longest, brutal rape scenes, is also being remade. (The original film was based on the novel.)

You act as if this is a society that has made its way past rape, and now you can use it to make a statement. It is not; you cannot. Look, a slasher film is a slasher film; I get that, and there’s no merit to them save for people who enjoy watching people get mutilated and murdered. We aren’t a post-murder or post-mutilation society, of course; just take a look at the Congo to see the most brutal, horrific modern day horror you could ever see. But these slasher films usually include rare to never-used scenarios—the man in the scream mask, the guy with the hook—and that’s somewhat permissible. I’d argue that it’s not really art (and it’s usually not even that creative or original, either), but it’s not actually glorifying murder. The guy is a psycho and he usually gets his comeuppance—until the sequel, at least.

But you don’t have to put a rape scene in it to make it scary. You can put it in to alienate your female audience (as well as your male audience with a conscience), or to glorify rape itself and excite your male audience with a grisly snuff film, allowing them to further believe rape to be not a big deal, or glamorous, or to be so comfortable with it that it just becomes another part of rape culture, for people to just accept as a part of life.

I don’t care if that isn’t your intention—though, by instilling these visuals into the minds of your audience, I’m not sure how it couldn’t be—that is how it ends up. I haven’t watched a film involving a brutal rape scene if I could help it since Eye for an Eye, and I will continue this boycott until I die. Because there is no reason to glorify rape—or to even depict it visually, presently—at all.

And as a side note, all of these remakes are pure laziness. Get a job, Hollywood.