That guy who said what he did was lucky internet wasn't around in 1978.

When that guy was saying "He'd love it if a woman r***d (you know what)" him, he was lucky internet was not around in 1978 as on sites there will be bloggers who would rudely tell him off or talk about instances where men are victims of other men there and he may feel humiliated, but I also found it interesting how when talking to that woman, at no point did she interrupt him to say how, well, if THAT type of scenario ALSO happened, he may not like it either, not to mention of course that for a woman to experience it is nothing short of a worst nightmare, and plus, if he WANTED it, would that even BE "r*pe", wouldn't it be consensual sex or even S&M if it wasn't forced against him?

And by the way, isn't the title of this movie SO controversial, was "Deliverance" (1972) NOT a popular movie in 1978 in Sweden or Finland, or was it JUST referring to a case of gender reversal r*pe where a woman is a perpetrator and a man a victim? And even if in the very latter case, the LAW does NOT recognize it, does that mean that MORALITY and ordinary humans shouldn't EITHER?

Granted, at the end, it happened to a GUILTY man who did in the FIRST place, but what if a man was innocent? And also, what if the man's friends or relatives say INSIST that he WAS a victim and let's say for argument's sake the woman is guilty, even if law doesn't recognize it, does that mean those people should just accept it and move on? And who DECIDES any of it?

I kinda got the feeling after watching this film that this movie wanted to provoke thoughts along THOSE lines if not overall, then AS WELL at least.