Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[LookAtYouHacker]

(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.

We met in the midst of a thread, concerning a male rape victims experience. Remember?

Also, the "laughable" comment wasn't directed at you, sorry. It was directed at others.

 

[RaggedKarma]

A revenge fantasy is a revenge fantasy.

 

[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?

Easy

Her rape was protrayed as dirty rotten and evil.

His rape was protrayed as OK, plus he got more than just a rape.


Anyway lots of movies justify an eye for eye punishment as OK. It's not confined to this movie, or to rape.See Kill Bill (no seriously see it, it's a good movie). It plays to revenge fantasies.

In my mind it's not portrayed, it's interpreted as ok by those who submit to their emotions (which they're entitled to.)

AKA, she's raping her rapist; obviously numerous people would find that satisfying.

Yes, from a purely legal/objective perspective, what she did was not better than the rapist, but I've explained as to why I believe the motivations cause the rapes to differ (and why I understand her actions.)

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

What is your definition of justice then? The victim's justice? Society's justice? Which perspective are you perceiving justice from? If the victim is not satisfied with having the perpetrator go to prison to be raped by other men or women, is that not a failure of justice? Hasn't justice failed if it fails to bring at least some level of balance to the emotional state of the victim?

Now I realize that some victims may want to kill the perpetrators entire family out of anger. He/she may want to torture and mutilate the victim for days. There is such a thing as overreaction, and I never said that once the inequality is brought about, a true equilibrium can be brought back. There is never a true equilbrium, only the push and pull of opposing forces, equilibrium is merely an idea that can only be achieved with the entropy of the universe. Perhaps the courts do serve to mitigate some of the more extreme reactions people may have, but on the flipside the courts can also fuck things up royally and make retarded decisions.

However in this one instance, Lisbeth is justified in her reaction. She brought no harm to anyone but her emotional and physical oppressor, she kept it within a reasonable time limit, and the branding on top of that was merely interest on top of the forcible borrowing thrust on her.

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 wasn't going to post until I could think of a suitable pun, butt-fuck it. I can't be assed!

The winner ladies and gentlemen. The winner.

I still think justice is just a platform which allows people to grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair. It's a fantasy we maintain (with menially realised realities,) but in my mind a fantasy none the less.

I also think people sometimes dismiss hateful emotions out of a surreptitious fear; a desire to supposedly maintain a sensation of ?rationality? though objectivity. In order words, they fear how they would respond if placed in the same situation. That's just me, anyway.

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

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

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I still think justice is just a platform which allows people to grasp for some form of "order" in a world that has always been (and always will be) unfair. It's a fantasy we maintain (with menially realised realities,) but in my mind a fantasy none the less.

I also think people sometimes dismiss hateful emotions out of a surreptitious fear; a desire to supposedly maintain a sensation of ?rationality? though objectivity. In order words, they fear how they would respond if placed in the same situation. That's just me, anyway.

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

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

Well that's a lot of bull.

Law does provide order. It may not always be satisfactory and it may not always be right. But it is order.

It may not be totally fair and it certainly isn't infallible but it's miles better than the alternative.

And dismissing hateful emotions has nothing to do with fear. I know how I'd react if I was raped, I know I'd want to kill the person who'd done such a thing to me (I wouldn't rape them because that offers no satisfaction for me, I would however probably take satisfaction in killing them.)

I may even end up doing just that if I was raped. That doesn't mean I don't objectively understand why that's wrong. Or why a court and trial is better in the larger picture. Only if that course of action fails is someone actually justified in taking the law into their own hands.

I believe you misunderstood the initial context. When I say "justice", I'm not talking about the connotation of "law." I?m talking about the theory that it provides seamless, universal balance. As for the law, yes, it supplies menial "elements" of order, but not unadulterated order. The world would indeed be less "orderly" without it, but the order it advocates isn't wholly culminated.

Perfectly understandable.

I remain obstinate in my second statement (which I notably perpetuated in a subjective context I've literally encountered such individuals; those who would fear their own behaviour in anger-inducing circumstances. That of course doesn't mean you can't remain objective and comprehend mental implications. I'm capable of doing so as well, though my tendency to submit to emotion does periodically cloud my objectivity.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I believe you misunderstood the initial context. When I say "justice", I'm not talking about the connotation of "law." I?m talking about the theory that it provides seamless, universal balance. As for the law, yes, it supplies menial "elements" of order, but not unadulterated order. The world would indeed be less "orderly" without it, but the order it advocates isn't wholly culminated.

Perfectly understandable.

I remain obstinate in my second statement (which I notably perpetuated in a subjective context I've literally encountered such individuals; those who would fear their own behaviour in anger-inducing circumstances. That of course doesn't mean you can't remain objective and comprehend mental implications. I'm capable of doing so as well, though my tendency to submit to emotion does periodically cloud my objectivity.

Fair enough, it does seem like I misunderstood that point. As long as you agree that law does provide a certain level of order (whether for better or worse) then I don't think we have anything to argue about.

And as for the second point, I don't mean that I wouldn't fear what I'd do in such a situation. Because I likely would succumb to emotion, and I do fear that. It's just that I can contextualise these emotions and I don't see it taking away from what I objectively understand to be the better choice.

If someone didn't correlate order and the law, I wouldn't insult them. However, I would disagree with them. In other words yes, I agree; a world without law is destined to be more chaotic without it.

As for your second point, I knew you meant that; I was merely disputing that individuals never dismissed emotions out of fear.

 

[ElPatron]

So, how is she any less of a rapist than the guy who raped her? Theoretically, the guy could easily call the cops and they'd both go to jail for a really long time.

SPOILER ALERT

Spoiler

The rapist has a gun in his home.

Rather than looking into the story, look into the author. He was apparently a huge feminist and had more than a few issues.

I object to describing "do to men what men do to women" as feminism.

"Rape: 1. What men do to women"

I am 99.9% sure this wasn't what you meant, but it seems that there is always someone on the Escapist that makes me rage at his/her phrasing.

Also, what the author was as a person doesn't have to transpire into every sequence on the book, damn it.

It's okay to rape someone as long as he raped you first?

Does it matter? Lisbeth Salander is supposed to have a very different set of morals, "right or wrong" is not the real issue.

If what is depicted in the movie/book happened to you, do you deny you would want revenge in it's fullest extent? If you say yes, I'll just say that you don't have to agree with your emotions or impulses. If you say no, I won't believe you.

No matter your personal opinions, morals or what you see as "good" and "evil" the principle of "an eye for an eye" is hardwired into human emotion. Doesn't mean you have to take action. But you know you want to. Nobody is perfect and nobody is "good".

Stieg Larsson probably thought about the scene when he was thinking what the rapist he had seen when he was younger deserved. I bet that Larsson never raped any rapist even though he wished the hell.

 

[WolfThomas]

So, how is she any less of a rapist than the guy who raped her? Theoretically, the guy could easily call the cops and they'd both go to jail for a really long time.

SPOILER ALERT

Spoiler

The rapist has a gun in his home.

Spoiler: but?

He's a register member of a pistol club, what does the gun have to do with anything?

 

[Deviluk]

Shudder, you just reminded me of this horrendous scene. I haven't been that freaked since I watched 'nice boat'....yeah you know what I mean.

I remember my mum saying she was going to watch it, and my sister, my gf and I simultaneously shouted "NOOOooOO!"

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Does it matter? Lisbeth Salander is supposed to have a very different set of morals, "right or wrong" is not the real issue.

If what is depicted in the movie/book happened to you, do you deny you would want revenge in it's fullest extent? If you say yes, I'll just say that you don't have to agree with your emotions or impulses. If you say no, I won't believe you.

No matter your personal opinions, morals or what you see as "good" and "evil" the principle of "an eye for an eye" is hardwired into human emotion. Doesn't mean you have to take action. But you know you want to. Nobody is perfect and nobody is "good".

Stieg Larsson probably thought about the scene when he was thinking what the rapist he had seen when he was younger deserved. I bet that Larsson never raped any rapist even though he wished the hell.

Yeah, but it really doesn't affect the story (in the American film) at all. She operates on a "different set of morals," but when does that come up again? Sure, she helps the journalist with his case, but was it that necessary to shove a 20 minute rape sequence in my face? The movie doesn't really demonstrate in any meaningful way that that is why she helps him. If anything, she helps him because she thinks he's attractive, knows his personal life very well, and wants to have sex with him (which she does). Everything related to Salander character is basically filler that allegedly will "make more sense in the other movies."

 

[JimB]

"Rape: 1. What men do to women"

I am 99.9% sure this wasn't what you meant, but it seems that there is always someone on the Escapist that makes me rage at his/her phrasing.

You're right: That wasn't my point. I was objecting to the idea that Ke$ha songs can be described as feminist because they objectify men the way male singers objectify women with their songs. Feminism is the struggle for equal treatment of the sexes, so anyone who says that it's a feminist victory for a woman to rape a man is saying it's okay for men to get revenge via the method of violent sexual assault.

 

[easternflame]

The author would tell you it was justified, if he was alive. The original title of the book was "Men who hate women."

Actually, it's "Men who didn't love women"
OP I guess when it comes to justice it's subjective, hahaha to say that on forums and nothing else is either trolling or stupid.

 

[Nieroshai]

The author would tell you it was justified, if he was alive. The original title of the book was "Men who hate women."

Actually, it's "Men who didn't love women"
OP I guess when it comes to justice it's subjective, hahaha to say that on forums and nothing else is either trolling or stupid.

Is that from memory or did you look it up?

 

[easternflame]

The author would tell you it was justified, if he was alive. The original title of the book was "Men who hate women."

Actually, it's "Men who didn't love women"
OP I guess when it comes to justice it's subjective, hahaha to say that on forums and nothing else is either trolling or stupid.

Is that from memory or did you look it up?

No, I mean that's what it says, the translation may have been different in your country (I assume USA?) but you gotta admit, it does change the context a wee bit. Now, I'm not saying the guy wasn't a feminist but still...

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

No, you don't.

Yes you do. Its called being an adult, rather then being a child.

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.

An i believe that thats a base rate appeal to motive... So one of us is right & the other one is you.

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.

Except i didn't compare the two. I compared your given justification with that of a foot stomping 2 year old throwing a tantrum, because there is no difference between the two justificaitons.

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.

Sure, but not all of us think "hmmmmm, i know i'll rape someone because i'm angry." There is no justification for that kind of behaviour.

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.

Don't need to dismiss it, just don't have to be a prisoner to it. After all anger makes you angry, it does not make you go an purchase a taser & tattooing kit, go tase a dude, rape him with a glass dildo & then tattoo him. Thats not an effect of anger, thats a premeditated set of actions.

To your first response: I don?t mean to be a d*ck, but constant attempts to define "adult" behaviour is phenomenally childish in itself. Minors often attempt to visually replicate adult behaviour in order to appear more ?mature?; please refrain yourself from doing it in the future. To re-iterate, the "adult" is a biological condition.

Wisdom or maturity aren?t mental traits that are exclusive prerequisites of age, they?re ?ideals? generated via idiosyncratic mental processes, which are exponentially formulated upon individualistic interpretations.

You?re again indirectly (or judging from your subsequent response, unconsciously) comparing a rape victims inability to overcome trauma to that of a child?

I think even you can surreptitiously comprehend how problematic such a comparison is.

To your second response: No offence, but I'm frankly uncertain if you comprehended my sentence. Also, I advise you not to end your sentences with such unquestionable statements.

To your third response, from my perspective you indirectly did (and you indirectly did again in your first subsequent response.) With all due respect, please re-read your sentence structure from an outsiders perspective; your diction has to fully delineate your sentiments on a menially seamless basis.

Please refrain yourself from posturing comparisons based on 2-year olds throwing tantrums. In my mind, it has no sincere relevance to any conversation of my general awareness.


To your forth response, obviously you comprehend that an act of revenge is more satisfactory by duplicating the actions. I never said rape was an outlet for all forms of anger; your malformed interpretations of my sentiments are frankly baffling.

To your fifth response, I believe anger can indeed fuel motives of revenge; they're indeed capable of correlating.

Rape victims need compulsory/mandatory psychological support; mere statements of encouragement do little against a psychologically damaged mind. It doesn?t help me and it didn?t seem to help my 19-year old sister who was raped 17 years ago (and it couldn?t now anyway she was beaten to death before she even had the chance.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

You?re again indirectly (or judging from your subsequent response, unconsciously) comparing a rape victims inability to overcome trauma to that of a child?

No, as i've already pointed out the fact that the action is rape is not important, using "anger" as an excuse for any detrimental action is the same logic used by children to excuse there own negative behaviour.

As for the rest its pretty much moot as you seem to think "anger" in a excuse for rape. Essentially you've just created a justification where i can do anything & that makes me angry, so i'm going to come over to your house tonight & rape you & your family... but its okay, because i'll be really angry about something when i do it, an that will make the action justifiable... right?

See what i did there? I showcased how asanine your defense of a justification for an unjustifiable crime is. Society does not function on an eye for an eye methodolgy anymore.

Yes, I see what you did there; you've unconsciously forwarded the exact same arguments which I?ve already tried to explain my position of in the previous response (I'm being deadly serious.) Honestly, I've forwarded absolutely everything I have to say.

*Shrugs*

We have nothing more to discuss if you still cannot understand what I?m trying to convey; everything you need to know is in the previous response.

Before this devolves into name calling (to quote your disheartening usage of the word ?asinine?,) then I think we should just grind our teeth and painfully accept our evidently misunderstood, knowledge-based differences.

 

[ElPatron]

Yeah, but it really doesn't affect the story (in the American film) at all. She operates on a "different set of morals," but when does that come up again?

Because she doesn't commit crimes or morally objectionable actions through the whole saga.

The movie doesn't really demonstrate in any meaningful way that that is why she helps him.

I'm pretty sure Blomkvist had the intention to "hire" her after reading his own detailed report.

Spoiler: but?

He's a register member of a pistol club, what does the gun have to do with anything?

And I ask, what does being registered have to do with anything?

He wouldn't call the cops. The books make the character irrational and impulsive, not thinking the things through. If he had the chance to defend himself, he would use a "justifiable homicide" on a woman with a record and mental issues. He would just kill her and end it there, because he knew he would get away with it.

You're right: That wasn't my point.

Of course it wasn't, if it was it would be very weak.

But it sure read like you were implying something that wasn't nice.

I was objecting to the idea that Ke$ha songs can be described as feminist because they objectify men the way male singers objectify women with their songs.

Despite being horrible, I see nothing wrong with Ke$ha songs. I have no problem with the lyrics.

Feminism is the struggle for equal treatment of the sexes, so anyone who says that it's a feminist victory for a woman to rape a man is saying it's okay for men to get revenge via the method of violent sexual assault.

>Stieg Larsson was a feminist
>His book includes rape
>Therefore rape is feminism

That's my only problem. The logical jump between a person's beliefs and his work.

 

[WolfThomas]

Spoiler: but?

He's a register member of a pistol club, what does the gun have to do with anything?

And I ask, what does being registered have to do with anything?

He wouldn't call the cops. The books make the character irrational and impulsive, not thinking the things through. If he had the chance to defend himself, he would use a "justifiable homicide" on a woman with a record and mental issues. He would just kill her and end it there, because he knew he would get away with it.

Okay misinterpreted your post before. I thought you were saying he didn't call the police because of the gun, as in he was worried they'd find it or something.

 

[ungothicdove]

OK, I haven't gone through all ten pages but I did a quick skim. Has anyone mentioned that he controlled all of her money and she needed him to write positive reviews on her progress so she can eventually be independent? So to me, not only is revenge part of her rape/torture, but also that she needs control over him in order that she has access to her funds.

And to be honest, in a movie about revenge where it's the woman doing this to a man who took advantage of her, I'm hardly inclined to get offended that she took matters into her own hands. It may not be right but it's poetic justice.

 

[JimB]

Despite being horrible, I see nothing wrong with Ke$ha songs. I have no problem with the lyrics.

She is saying exactly the same crap about men that offends me when men say it about women. If you're okay with that, fine--everyone has different boundaries--but I want to smack the little twerp for exposing girls to that brand of "empowerment."

Feminism is the struggle for equal treatment of the sexes, so anyone who says that it's a feminist victory for a woman to rape a man is saying it's okay for men to get revenge via the method of violent sexual assault.

>Stieg Larsson was a feminist
>His book includes rape
>Therefore rape is feminism

That's my only problem. The logical jump between a person's beliefs and his work.

Unless Stieg Larsson said the rape scene is a victory for feminism--and I have no idea if he did or didn't--I am not talking about him.