Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[LookAtYouHacker]

Justice is just a platform which allows people to hopelessly grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair.

It does not have to be an objective force in order to be a real thing. It is a change we can enforce upon the world.

Also, in regards to the suggestion that she's no better than the rapist, the acts where committed for two different reasons. When he raped her, it was out of gratification. When she raped him, her actions were motivated by revenge...

Which is just a different kind of gratification.

...which could be classified as a mental imbalance.

Not according to any diagnosis in the DSM-IV that I am aware of.

In a sense, the insanity plea could be applicable; her motivations were guided by mental imbalance.

Did she take any efforts to avoid capture and punishment for her crime?

Bottom line, it's ludicrous to expect traumatized individuals to behave normally in such circumstances.

It's in moments of stress, when we're forced to act on instinct, that we discover who we really are. Lisbeth Salander is a rapist.

To your first response: The very assumption that we can enforce "change upon this world" was precisely the type of fantasy I was referring to.

To your second response: Yes, gratification motivated by an instance of hateful passion; an unintentionally influenced, sympathetic mindset. You're respectfully abiding by sole definitions and not the structures which they're intended to represent.

To your third response: I never intended to classify it as a legitimate mental condition.

To your forth response: No.

To your fifth response: I don't see how that quote correlates with my statement. Lisbeth Salander a rapist? Yes, from a purely objective perspective, with no consideration for the mental state her rapist inflicted upon her.

By the way, if you think I thought her actions were justified, you're wrong. I merely sympathize with her.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

She's not as stupid as the people who expect rational actions from a traumatized individual.

Having a reason to be irrational does not make you sympathetic.

I never said sympathetic.

It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from the courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."

An inappropriate statement, but anger that is comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

To your fifth response: I don't see how that quote correlates with my statement. Lisbeth Salander a rapist? Yes, from a purely objective perspective, with no consideration for the mental state her rapist inflicted upon her.

Um... rape is objective, but nice defense laywer-ing, I must say. However, insanity pleas almost never work, especially when you can show premeditation. There is a lot of premeditation here. A prosecutor would probably say "She could have gone to the cops many times. She had all the evidence. But no, all she wanted was extortion and her own sick sexual gratification." I wouldn't necessarily "agree" with the prosecutor, but a jury probably would, since they could build her up as a druggie nutcase danger to society (which she certainly would appear to be).

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

To your fifth response: I don't see how that quote correlates with my statement. Lisbeth Salander a rapist? Yes, from a purely objective perspective, with no consideration for the mental state her rapist inflicted upon her.

Um... rape is objective, but nice defense laywer-ing, I must say. However, insanity pleas almost never work, especially when you can show premeditation. There is a lot of premeditation here. A prosecutor would probably say "She could have gone to the cops many times. She had all the evidence. But no, all she wanted was extortion and her own sick sexual gratification." I wouldn't per say "agree" with the prosecutor, but a jury probably would, since they could build her up as a druggie nutcase danger to society (which she certainly would appear to be).

Thanks, and nice "other laywer-ing". By the way I never said her actions were justifiable; I understand WHY she did it, not that she SHOULD have done it.

 

[JimB]

The very assumption that we can enforce "change upon this world" was precisely the type of fantasy I was referring to.

Which is why slavery is still legal in the United States: because enforcing change is a fantasy.

Yes, gratification motivated by an instance of hateful passion; an unintentionally influenced, sympathetic mindset.

So her attacker's desire to force her to have sex can't be described as "hateful passion?"

I never intended to classify it as a legitimate mental condition.

Then she has no mental disease or defect and is therefore responsible for her own actions.

I don't see how that quote correlates with my statement.

You say that she's under stress; I say being people under stress reveal their true character rather than abandon it.

Lisbeth Salander a rapist? Yes, from a purely objective perspective, with no consideration for the mental state her rapist inflicted upon her.

I don't care if she's mad. Being mad is not a Get Out Of Acting Like A Responsible Adult Free card. "I was mad" is what your kindergartner tells you when you asked him why he broke Billy's dump truck on the playground, not what an adult says when you ask her why she tazed, restrained, raped, and tattooed a man.

By the way, if you think I thought her actions were justified, you're wrong. I merely sympathize with her.

I did think that, so thank you for clarifying your position.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

The very assumption that we can enforce "change upon this world" was precisely the type of fantasy I was referring to.

Which is why slavery is still legal in the United States: because enforcing change is a fantasy.

Yes, gratification motivated by an instance of hateful passion; an unintentionally influenced, sympathetic mindset.

So her attacker's desire to force her to have sex can't be described as "hateful passion?"

I never intended to classify it as a legitimate mental condition.

Then she has no mental disease or defect and is therefore responsible for her own actions.

I don't see how that quote correlates with my statement.

You say that she's under stress; I say being people under stress reveal their true character rather than abandon it.

Lisbeth Salander a rapist? Yes, from a purely objective perspective, with no consideration for the mental state her rapist inflicted upon her.

I don't care if she's mad. Being mad is not a Get Out Of Acting Like A Responsible Adult Free card. "I was mad" is what your kindergartner tells you when you asked him why he broke Billy's dump truck on the playground, not what an adult says when you ask her why she tazed, restrained, raped, and tattooed a man.

By the way, if you think I thought her actions were justified, you're wrong. I merely sympathize with her.

I did think that, so thank you for clarifying your position.

To your first response: I was referring to justice alone, not the overall potential of change.

To your second response: Given that the motivations of rapists are multi-factorial, I can't be sure.

To your third response: There may be no precise psychological term for her exact mental state in that situation (rape victims can suffer from PTSD after rape,) but that doesn't mean she isn't mentally imbalanced.

To your forth response: I'm not sure how to respond.

To your fifth response: In my mind you should care (but you're entitled not to a rape victims anger and a kindergarteners tantrum is not comparable in my mind.

 

[JimB]

I was referring to justice alone, not the overall potential of change.

Okay.

Given that the motivations of rapists are multi-factorial, I can't be sure.

So they're sympathetic too?

There may be no precise psychological term for her exact mental state in that situation (rape victims can suffer from PTSD after rape), but that doesn't mean she isn't mentally imbalanced.

"Imbalanced" is not synonymous with "incompetent."

I'm not sure how to respond.

I'd give you pointers, but it would feel like cheating.

In my mind, you should care (but you're entitled not to); a rape victim's anger and a kindergartner's tantrum are not comparable in my mind.

The latter is a learning experience that we use to teach ourselves how to respond to adult situations like the former. I won't minimize the trauma of sexual assault, but I don't care about "Well he raped me first!" excuses any more than I care about "Well I was sexually abused as a child!" as an excuse for child molestation.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I think it was MovieBob who said Lisbeth Salander is supposed to be some kind of fantasy girl; a perfect woman for the author to masturbate to. This kind of revenge fantasy fits in pretty well with that theory.

The movie does a poor job of showing her motivations and of actually making the story make sense. I don't see how people could understand it without reading the book first.

Essentially, Salander has been dependent on someone else for her entire life. She has a very dark personality and so she was an outcast for most of her life. She saw many injustices throughout it because of people making judgments just on her looks and on the looks of the people she hung out with. Because of this, she became distrustful towards pretty much everyone (including the police). The only person she trusted was her previous guardian. When he died, she had no one to trust. When her new guardian starts raping her, she considers going to the police but because of her past experiences, she doesn't believe that they could help her. She thinks they might even side against her. So she does the only thing she can think of. She gets video evidence and then makes death threats to her new guardian. To insure that he knows she's serious, she sexually abuses him and then tattoos him. Was she right to do this? No, this was very wrong but it was what she knew.

I don't see how this makes her sound like "a fantasy woman who is perfect for the author to masturbate to". It makes her sound like a complex and tragic character who is emotionally disturbed. Dismissing her as some sick fantasy of the author is just ridiculous.

 

[JimB]

I don't see how this makes her sound like "a fantasy woman who is perfect for the author to masturbate to."

I was about to recite what I remember of his explanation, but you know what? If you actually care what his opinion is, the review is on this very site for anyone who wants to watch it.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't see how this makes her sound like "a fantasy woman who is perfect for the author to masturbate to."

I was about to recite what I remember of his explanation, but you know what? If you actually care what his opinion is, the review is on this very site for anyone who wants to watch it.

I quoted you because you agreed with him. I was asking for your reasoning, not his. The idea that just because Salander is dark and deeply flawed means she was designed for the author's own personal pleasure is ludicrous. You can say that about any character but it doesn't make it true. It just sounds like you're dismissing the author as a sick freak because he made a character you don't like.

 

[lacktheknack]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

She's not as stupid as the people who expect rational actions from a traumatized individual.

Having a reason to be irrational does not make you sympathetic.

I never said sympathetic.

It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from the courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."

An inappropriate statement, but anger that is comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.

Well, obviously.

Did the victim then rape the defendant with a dildo? Because that's inexcusable, regardless of palpable anger. And that's what Lisbeth did.

 

[JimB]

I quoted you because you agreed with him.

No, I said the evidence presented fits the theory I heard once.

I was asking for your reasoning, not his.

Okay.

So far as I know, Lisbeth Salander is based on the author's shame at having watched a rape, or not having stopped a rape, or something. He failed to act at a time when he should have, so he puts himself into the role of God and creates a woman who's in more or less the same situation, then makes her avenge herself on her attacker. It comes off as an attempt to vicariously atone for his failure through fantasy, which is nothing by masturbation of the conscience.

It just sounds like you're dismissing the author as a sick freak because he made a character you don't like.

No, I have no idea what kind of person the author is. I don't care. I've never met him and am pretty unlikely to ever remedy that situation, so the kind of person he is means nothing to me, and I won't waste the effort to judge him. I'm discussing the quality of the character.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

To your first response: Ok.

To your second response: I don't see how my suggestion of multiple motivations insinuated that rapists were sympathetic. I know you're going to question how I separate such motivations from Lisbeth Salander, but I've already explained why I believe there's a difference. However, If the rapist in question was perhaps sexually abused as a child, I would be menially capable of sympathizing with him.

To your third response: I did actually intend the word imbalanced to border on incompetent; transcendent anger can enforce irrational decisions (it's happened to me.)

To your forth response: Ok.

To your fifth response: I'm not sure if that learning experience actually exists. If it does, it isn't applied to everyone. Besides, I wouldn't classify Lisbeth Salander as an "adult." Even if she was, my opinion would remain the same. Additionally, it's easy to assume (or tell yourself) how you would behave in such a situation, but to actually experience that situation is obviously different.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

She's not as stupid as the people who expect rational actions from a traumatized individual.

Having a reason to be irrational does not make you sympathetic.

I never said sympathetic.

It's like a recent report of a rape victim who was temporarily removed from the courtroom; she called the rapists defendant a "*****."

An inappropriate statement, but anger that is comprehendible (and should be understood) by those knowledgeable of rape.

Well, obviously.

Did the victim then rape the defendant with a dildo? Because that's inexcusable, regardless of palpable anger. And that's what Lisbeth did.

Inexcusable; I can understand that from your mindset. Understandable? In my mind, yes.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I quoted you because you agreed with him.

No, I said the evidence presented fits the theory I heard once.

I was asking for your reasoning, not his.

Okay.

So far as I know, Lisbeth Salander is based on the author's shame at having watched a rape, or not having stopped a rape, or something. He failed to act at a time when he should have, so he puts himself into the role of God and creates a woman who's in more or less the same situation, then makes her avenge herself on her attacker. It comes off as an attempt to vicariously atone for his failure through fantasy, which is nothing by masturbation of the conscience.

It just sounds like you're dismissing the author as a sick freak because he made a character you don't like.

No, I have no idea what kind of person the author is. I don't care. I've never met him and am pretty unlikely to ever remedy that situation, so the kind of person he is means nothing to me, and I won't waste the effort to judge him. I'm discussing the quality of the character.

Ok thanks for clarifying. The impression I got was that you agreed with the theory you heard. I actually didn't know about that incident with the author witnessing a rape. I see what you mean about him recreating the scenario but it's not like he's making her a hero or giving her a good life. He pretty clearly shows that she's not really a good person and then she makes her fall in love and then promptly has her feelings stomped on at the end.
Because of this, I don't really think he's fulfilling his own fantasy, I think he's just drawing on some personal experience as a lot of authors do.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I would hope so, yes. I'd still have no respect for the guy but basic human compassion would probably make me step in. And if it didn't I'd be pretty ashamed of myself afterwards.

That is weird, such emotions don't even enter my mind but then again the thought of someone being raped brings out hatred in me like no other thing can do.
My adrenalin just peaks and I just want to end the rapist with my fists.

I understand those feelings, just don't think we'd be very good people or have a very stable society if we acted on them. Rise above it, y'know?

One does not simply "rise above it"; you're trivialising a level of anger which you will never understand until you've experienced it for yourself.

Please don't objectively state how people "should" or "should not" behave in such situations.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

A Big Snip.

Do you know what characterisation is? This particular segment establishes a fairly defining characteristic of Lisbeth and her methods and ability to respond to things. She is also not meant to be terribly sympathetic at this point in the story.

Also how fucked up are you that you sympathise with the guy who thinks it's okay to rape an apparently simple girl under his care?

He's just as screwed up as the people who sympathise with a girl who assaults and anally rapes a dude and vandalizes his body.

Rape is rape.

Here's a question for you: If she raped him first, would it be so much better if rape became his revenge?

I'm not sympathising with her, she's deliberately unsympathetic, what she does is disproportionate in the extreme and shows some serious level of being fucked up that she shrugs it off the way she does. The point is to establish this short of behaviour in her, not as a revenge fantasy.

I find it amusing how you think the concept of disproportion can be attributed to actions of revenge. Obviously the pain a vengeful person desires to inflict would be more so than the pain inflicted upon them. As for "deliberately unsympathetic", are you referring to the authors portrayal of her character? Or that she should sympathize with her rapist?!

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

Justice is never in the hands of the victim.

Too much raw emotion for objectivity.

Revenge is a perfectly understandable desire, that doesn't make it right. I'm not the biggest supporter of our current justice systems, I do think they often fail or are too overburdened by legislation and bureaucracy. But to put the power in the hands of the victim is counter intuitive. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.'

I think it was Gandhi who said that. You know the guy who killed a bunch of people in wars during his youth, the warmongering racist who let his wife die when she could have been saved by penicillin. You know, the one society paints as a saint.

I suppose your going to tell me that Mother Teresa was some sort of paragon of virtue as well. HA

how irrelevant.

"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
No longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks,
Then lend her your arm in support, escort her with happy pleasure?
the hour will come when, weeping, you must accompany her on her final walk.
And if she asks you something, then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her, not impatiently, but with gentle calm.
And if she cannot understand you properly, explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour, when her mouth asks for nothing more."

I find that to be a fairly touching quote. Oh wait, Hitler said it, guess it's bullshit.

Justice, as you seem to see it, is an antiquated concept. Revenge begets hatred and suffering, not emotional healing. You talk of "balance" as if there are some kind of magical scales of justice in the universe that demands equitable retaliation to all wrongdoings. A proportionate response to a crime does not necessarily mean exacting that same crime upon someone.

No, that does not mean I feel our current judicial system is perfect or even fully competent. That said, pure revenge is not going to make things better.

(Dramatic glance) We meet again.

Physical or mental implications of revenge depend on the victim, not on conjectures or individualistic experiences. My grandmother is currently imprisoned for forging my grandfathers will and a calculated attempt of indirect murder. My father (whom my grandmother also accused of being a paedophile) seems to think revenge is indeed very sweet.

*Shrugs*

Of course, this "revenge" was based on the justice system as opposed to carrying out the same crime, but I digress. In pertinence to the actual subject at hand, her actions were lawfully (and perhaps ethically) reprehensible, but (for reasons I've already explained) I can understand her actions.

To expect a traumatized individual to exhibit rationality in such a condition of transcendent hatred is near laughable.

 

[axlryder]

(Dramatic glance) We meet again.

Physical or mental implications of revenge depend on the victim, not on conjectures or individualistic experiences. My grandmother is currently imprisoned for forging my grandfathers will and a calculated attempt of indirect murder. My father (whom my grandmother also accused of being a paedophile) seems to think revenge is indeed very sweet.

*Shrugs*

Of course, this "revenge" was based on the justice system as opposed to carrying out the same crime, but I digress. In pertinence to the actual subject at hand, her actions were lawfully (and perhaps ethically) reprehensible, but (for reasons I've already explained) I can understand her actions.

To expect a traumatized individual to exhibit rationality in such a condition of transcendent hatred is near laughable.

We met before? My memory really must be slipping.

Anyway, generally those who seek revenge are in an understandable position. What's more, if one is enacting revenge for a reason outside of the simple desire to inflict pain, then I can also see how it becomes less of a black and white situation (I feel like I specified that, but perhaps not in that particular post). Obviously motivations and mentalities differ between individuals. However, simply hurting someone purely because they did something to you is nearly never helpful, even if it feels good in the short term. It doesn't solve any problems aside from fulfilling a (potentially overwhelming) base, sadistic desire.

I clearly never said that it is expected for all traumatized individuals act rationally. Feel free to laugh at a point that you fabricated. That doesn't automatically make those actions right or mean they should be condoned or encouraged, however. What's more, whatever wits a person has about them should be used in an attempt to avoid things like needless vengeance.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

One does not simply "rise above it"; you're trivialising a level of anger which you will never understand until you've experienced it for yourself.

Yes, you do simply rise above it, thats what being an adult is all about. What you've just done is invent a loop hole for the worst acts imaginable. A raped you because i weas angry, i assualted you because i was angry, i physically mutilated you because i was angry, i threw acid in your face because i was angry, i killed you because i was angry, a commited an act of genocide against you & your entire family line because i was angry. You just invented a justification for any action, no matter how depraved.

I'm sorry but "because i was angry" is not ever a justification for action. In fact "because i was angry" is the foot stomping excuse of a child throwing a tantrum.

No, you don't. I believe that's a conjecture formulated upon a lack of knowledge and experience. To ?rise above it? takes time, willingness and fundamental psychological support.

Frankly, I find it perturbing that you would compare a child's tantrum to the anger of a rape victim, which (with all due respect) makes me question your knowledge of rape. I'm also confused as to why you bring the condition of being an "adult" into this discussion. The biological condition of being a fully matured "adult" does not eradicate the capability of experiencing emotions; anger is a human emotion; it's something that has effected everyone at some point.

Anyone can dismiss other?s emotions out of a misunderstanding or fear. In my mind, being mature is understanding and helping others deal with those emotions.