Thematically-essential rape-and-torture

From a Guardian article, "A study in sexual violence":

Britain is the only country in the EU - as far as I know - in which the state still censors films. At the same time, the issue [of sexual violence] is a real one, apparent to anybody whose cinemagoing extends beyond Harry Potter and cartoons. Sexualised violence has become a staple element of Hollywood entertainments and art cinema alike over the past few years, and a new expression - "extreme cinema" - has been coined to describe the films that feature it.

[...]

Having conquered and wrung dry the former taboos of onscreen sex and violence, filmmakers are now encouraged to conflate the two. Irréversible and Baise-Moi immediately spring to mind; but easily half the reviews I read of low-budget art films by new filmmakers refer, en passant, to "the gruelling but thematically-essential rape-and-torture scene". Cannes, in particular, seems to seek out such films. Now, are these films selected because festival programmers know there's an audience for them? Or are filmmakers, festivals and distributors creating an audience for increasing levels of sexual violence, by making and screening these films?

[...]

From my own experience, I think filmmakers are often encouraged, by their financiers, to include these things. Once, the studios or foreign sales agents were happy with a glimpse of a woman's breasts. Now that nudity is old hat and porn ubiquitous, directors are being jostled to provide something "a bit harder". In 2001, while we were editing Revengers Tragedy, the producers and I received a request from the Film Council to "make the rape scene more violent and explicit". [...] the Film Council may have reckoned a more explicit rape might get us into Cannes, or pick up a few more foreign sales. In other words, this was a pragmatic rape, a money thing.