Seconded. And also: Although I might add, that regarding the last paragraph, the question of "shock value" or "meaningful plot/story/mood element" is often hard to answer. The answer is in the eye of the beholder. There might be people who see a rape scene as immensely adding to the mood of a story, while they find a grossly detailed eviscerating scene blunt and "just for show". Other people might see it the other way around.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think rape scenes can be expectable if it isn't just there for shock. But the thing is it can be trivialised and that, to me, is wrong.

Anything is permissible in fiction. If it works in context then use it. Enforcing a taboo is restrictive to creative freedom.

If it aint your cup of tea then that's your preference.

Whether or not its any good then is up to the viewer/reader/player

I'm trying to say that a lot of horror fiction stands on shocking the audience. If rape can be used to shock the audience and it does, good - it's not cheapening the matter, it's playing with expectations of the audience. I'm also trying to say that "cheapening the matter" is such a broad and personal perspective that using it as a general term against usage of a storytelling element tends to be bad - define, how does it cheapen the matter? If a person viewing horror movie sees rape and is shocked by seeing rape, is rape cheapened in his eyes? I don't think so, quite the contrary.

Let's take it further tho, where can rape be used? Because, you see, there is rape and there is rape - some time ago, I was playing a mod to Neverwinter Nights which used a rape scene straight off the bat. The female who wrote it made sure to include all the politically correct bits - say it was horrible for the PC and whatnot - nonetheless, it was written in an extremely suggestive and ... Detailed manner. Actually, let's take it even further - porn movies. Yes, porn's media too. Not sure about art, but whatever, not the point. Rape seems to be extremely common female fantasy, very likely far more common than a male fantasy of raping a female. I won't go into psychology of the thing because I have only put a small amount of research into the matter, nonetheless, I find rape porn extremely gross and distasteful. Well, most of females I have known in my life sure didn't (I should probably point out that I gravitate towards strong, dominant women, my knowledge is probably slightly skewed). In other words, is it wrong that a form of art could show a very common fantasy? Is it triviliazing the matter, or is it mirroring realities around us? As far as I'm concerned, all art should be the latter - it should reflect society, both its reality and its dreams. And if it's making someone uncomfortable? That's good, because it'll make said someone think, research, discuss and find out why. Or it'll just make said someone a judgemental bastard. *Sigh*, who am I kidding, the latter happens a lot more.

+1 for putting it better than I

Personal Preference:

Body horror makes me super queasy. Like Cronnenberg stuff is something I don't really like to watch. Its shot really really well but makes me feel a sick. Videodrome was not an easy watch for me.

That being said I would never not want a creator to have as many tools and plot devices at their disposal simply because I did not fancy certain elements. Same goes for rape in fiction.

Horror should be free of rape. And killing. And monsters and evil. And disease both mental or physical. And the apocalypse.
Did I forget any nasty stuff? If not, have fun being scared!

I firmly believe that no subject should be "banned" from exploring it in art (books, music, games, etc.). Art needs to be free, needs to be able to break taboos, to provide a new perspective, to change our minds.

We may disagree with the way how one specific work depicts a given subject, especially if the subject is a very real issue that often leaves deep wounds, such as rape. But it's also possible to use it in a way that broadens our perspective, that lets us understand things a bit better. And you can't have the latter without also allowing the crap.

Horror movies are certainly a medium where rape is often just used as an embellishment or as a "gore" feature. But there are also works like "Deadgirl" which positively surprised me in the way how they handled the subject.

If you don't like horror movies that include rape scenes, that's absolutely fine. Don't watch them, or - if you do watch them - voice your discontent. But I'd stay away from sweeping statements like "horror shouldn't contain subject X", or calls for censorship (be it authoritative or self-inflicted).

If there's a movie that glorifies rape, or that revels in its depiction, then I will probably condemn this movie with very strong words. What I won't do, though, is calling for it to be banned, or claiming that the subject shouldn't be used at all. We need our minds to be free. Free minds obviously produce a lot of crap, but then we call them out on that.

Stupid question.No artist should censor themselfs.

Murder isn't scary, or creepy, or spooky it's just really horrible. I'm sure most people would agree that murdering someone is worse than raping him. Yet you seem to accept murder as a normal part of horror. Why is that?

This poster needs to read some Berserk. Good healthy fiction for the whole family.

Yes, if it benefits the story.

Disclaimer: Usually it doesn't because it's used as cheap drama.

By that logic what can horror stories do? Everything bad is horrible, that's what makes it scary. Being killed is horrible, being tortured is horrible, being driven to insanity is horrible, losing control over your actions is horrible, losing the grip on reality is horrible. Do you notice something about the word "horrible"? It's the adjective form of "horror". How? And if so, then why is the horror genre not also trivialising all the things I listed above?

This.

What about Evil Dead when she gets raped by a tree?

Rosemary's Baby; without rape there the movie has no plot.