Right, it comes down to power. Some use a weapon, some use humilitation, whatever. I still subscribe to the idea of where there's life there's hope, so I'm never going to say rape is worse than murder. You can live through it, and you can deal with the psychology. I'm not saying this applies to everyone, but to humanity as a whole, if we can somehow deal with holocaust and war, rape is almost minor league by comparison. Almost. But as I said, it's subjective. To one who's been through it, you'll never convince them either. Then again, if someone's been through both, rape and war, maybe they can say which is worse. Murder... nobody's talking. What makes anything worse than anything else is perception, nothing more, nothing less. Eye of the beholder stuff.

Can you tell my stream of consiousness mode is kicking in?

That it's rarely well done isn't the fault of the writer. If the writer's getting paid (i.e., rewarded), then that's positive reinforcement. That writer will do it again. Who's at fault? The publisher for giving him the shot? The audience for paying for it?

I totally agree - there are always other powerful ways to get anything across in writing. It comes down to the quality of the writer. Some people are better than others, and some simply will never get it.