Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Lieju]

On a positive note: I don't know if it made it into the American version, but the original film also strongly implies that she's bisexual (I seem to recall we see her naked getting out of a bed that has another woman in it). This appears to have no plot relevance whatsoever, giving the film/book (depending on whether that was in the book) a big tick for including a bisexual character without it being either plot required or an excuse for a girl-on-girl sex scene.

I haven't seen any of the movies, but in the original book she was a bisexual. In fact the woman who sleeps with her (and is the closest thing she has to a friend) refers to her as 'not even bisexual, just sexual'.

She sleeps with both men and women.

One critic who had seen the movies said she was a lesbian who had 'rejected men', and that her relationship with the main character 'fixed' her, but I have no idea if he was being homophobic or if the movie came out like that, possibly since they left out stuff for time, and if they didn't portray her character arc as someone who learns to trust another human being (as opposed to someone who just hates men), it might come out like that.

as someone who WAS molested before I gotta say this...
it sounds like the writer used a 'its okay if it happens to guys' argument to justify this.

Turn it around, if the guy was raping the girl in revenge for something? People would be outraged, angry, shocked. Because it's not right.

It's an interesting thought-experiment, what the discussion would be like if it was a man raping a woman as a revenge for the woman raping the man placed under her care.

There probably would be more 'blaming the victim' and claims that the man went too far.
(When rape is wrong no matter what)

And also people claiming the man was totally justified and that the feminists are overreacting and want to protect rapists.

 

[lacktheknack]

I imagine his point of view is that if someone does something terrible, even as revenge for something equally terrible, it's still TERRIBLE. You can't just lose all sympathy for another person because they did something wrong, no matter how wrong it was. That sympathy is exactly what made you think it was wrong in the first place, which is why this stupid eye for an eye logic doesn't work.

Sure you can lose all sympathy for another person if said person does something horrible first.

Say for example you see a girl getting raped, a person steps in and beats the rapist to a pulp, will you step in and defend the rapist? Will you make the rapist to a victim?

I didn't say that...

 

[JimB]

I was just saying that if a full-grown man gets "raped" by a woman, the majority will only point and laugh at him (because it's "extra humiliating"), not sympathize. And there's a good reason for that, because women raping men is astronomically rare for obvious reasons.

Tippy, there are a lot of things I want to say to you but can't because of the terms of use for this site, so I guess I'll have to be content with this:

This is one of the most sexist, heartless, disgusting loads of crap I have ever read in my life. Not only are you blaming the victims for being assaulted in ways that will scar them for life, you're saying they deserve to be mocked for it and are encouraging others to do so; and, for the first time since joining this site, I have reported a post, so, thanks so much for helping me cross a milestone I never wanted to cross.

"Shame on you" does not cover how ashamed you ought to be.

Victims of traumatic forms of abuse are known to lash out. This is why the abused wife for years may one day shoot her abusive husband that rapes, beats, and basically enslaves her may shoot her husband in his sleep.

No; statistically speaking, the overwhelming number of battered women kill their batterers because they feel their batterer will kill them any moment; that their death is imminent, and killing is the only way to stay alive.

Your analogy is totally irrelevant, if my wife got killed by a drunk driver, my beef would be with the driver, not his wife.

No, it isn't. You are arguing with a straight face that one horrible act is okay as long as it completely mirrors a horrible act inflicted upon me. You are saying, "Rape is wrong, and to prove it, I'm going to rape you, which will not be wrong."

If someone rapes me in the ass, then I WANT FUCKING JUSTICE, and justice is to give him his own medicine, so that the ************ knows what its like to be on the receiving end.

That is not justice. That is revenge.

What if you got raped in the ass by some sweaty fat clown, huh? What would you do?

I have no intention of answering this question beyond saying that it is hideously smug of you to assume that you are not talking to a victim of sexual assault already.

Are you dense? No really, how do you get "rape apologist" from "we should follow the law and not act like fucking animals?"

The same way he does not get "I am a rape apologist" from his own statements saying Lisbeth's act of rape is okay because the guy had it coming.

Is she less of a rapist than him? I'd say so. She did it for revenge, she's not the type who instigates that sort of thing.

No, she isn't. A rapist is someone who rapes. That is it. It is a binary measure. Either you are or aren't; there are no degrees.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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?

Why is rape okay as long as it happens to a "bad guy?" I simply don't buy that premise. It fucking hurts (I'd imagine), in addition to all of the other things that would happen to a person's psyche. You can't rape in self defense. She did it for her own masochistic pleasure. Next will we have a movie where the protagonist is a prison rapist, but it's "okay" because he only assaults convicted rapists? And the movie sees it as justified and we're supposed to be on that character's side?

Its "ok"[footnote] I do not endorse rape in any real life setting[/footnote] because she isn't going after innocent people. The same idea is applied to the death penalty, the difference from when a criminal murders a little old lady and when the state executes a convicted murder is that the old lady was innocent while the murder was far from it.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Honestly, I didnt see the movies but I can tell you what I read from the book. She deperately needed access to her money and did not so much agree to the oral sex as much as she didnt say anything or resist. In turn, she was planning on blackmailing him afterwards by secretly filming him next time he abused her. But, instead of oral sex, he brutally anally raped her. It took her weeks to physically and emotionally recover. She decides to do what she does not because he is a rapist, but because he is a sadist who enjoyed causing women pain. The sexual assault she was going to use to gain the upper hand in their relationship, it was the brutality and sadism that pushed her over the edge.
I dont personally feel for him. He attacked her because he thought she was retarded and wouldnt know how or where to get help. He literally thought she was retarded and therefore abused her violently, which is far more despicable than mere rape.

This makes slightly more sense than what was in the movie. Slightly. The movie almost paints him as a family man (with a coffee mug labeled "daddy") who doesn't fully understand what he did to her. He acts like he's trying to create some sort of relationship with her, too, and not one of the "I'm going to bang this retarded girl who doesn't know any better." And the revenge sequence seems to take place like the next day or two, not weeks. Believe me, I'm not "sympathizing / empathizing" with any of these characters (another problem I had with the movie), it just seemed like bullshit to use this sequence to paint the character as an "insane badass" when al that comes to mind for me is "hey, you're a rapist, too."

Wrong. The man raped her out of his lust and deprivation, he didn't control himself and so another person suffered for his actions. The woman is understandably upset about having her asshole torn open by some fat sweaty piece of shit. If you dont get that then god protect the women you come into contact with. She raped him not out of lust, she did it to teach him a lesson. She did it so that he would understand what she went through. If you dont get that, well... take a class in empathy or something because you are sorely lacking

Okay, line of issue number 1: You said that he raped her out of "deprivation" and he "didn't control himself?" Think about that. He punched her in the face and beat the shit out of her, handcuffed her to a bed, and stuck his penis in a moving resisting body that didn't want it there. That's beyond losing control. That's premeditated physical assault. Rape does not happen due to "deprivation." That is an entirely wrong and incorrect assertion. But... I think the movie might be thinking the way you do. More reason I don't like the movie.

Second line of issue: You said that she raped him to "teach him a lesson." Lots of people in real life get raped for exactly that sick and demented motive. The idea that they "had it coming." This is wrong, too. It just is. No one deserves to be raped. No one.

 

[kickassfrog]

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?

Why is rape okay as long as it happens to a "bad guy?" I simply don't buy that premise. It fucking hurts (I'd imagine), in addition to all of the other things that would happen to a person's psyche. You can't rape in self defense. She did it for her own masochistic pleasure. Next will we have a movie where the protagonist is a prison rapist, but it's "okay" because he only assaults convicted rapists? And the movie sees it as justified and we're supposed to be on that character's side?

In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.
See also the scene from Super where the guy cuts in line.

It's the typical "the punishment fits the crime" justification.

Basically, this.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

In Watchmen, Rorschach is locked in prison with a bunch of unspecified criminals, and he murders several of them, but it's still abundantly clear we're supposed to be cheering him on.
And frankly, I was. If you make a character seem like enough of an arsehole, it's easy to justify the 'good' guys taking out retribution on them in an extremely over the top manner.
See also the scene from Super where the guy cuts in line.

I feel like Watchmen had more of a grasp on this stuff, though. They're not "heroes" necessarily, so much as psychopath vigilantes who manage to evade the cops. Rorschach is a scary character who breaks bones, burns people, electrocutes people, smashes cleavers into skulls, and bites ears off. I also think the movie shows him murdering in self defense when other ruthless characters will not stop until he is murdered. We don't so much sympathize with Rorschach the character at the end, but more Rorschach's black and white moral code.

And I think Super was a satire specifically of this type of retribution. That shot of the life draining out of the cracked skull of that guy in line sticks with me until this day. It's not "man I feel that character is justified" but more "omg that is such a sick and wrongheaded thing to do to someone." His idiotic rampage eventually results in the murder of his close friend who had no idea of what she was getting into.

 

[In Search of Username]

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?

 

[Treblaine]

It depends, is she supposed to be a tragic hypocrite and it's shown how she has completely gone off the deep-end after her abuse? Or does the film genuinely depict it as "not count as rape" because the victim is a rapist when she used the glass dildo? If it's the former, that would be quite interesting to see how wrongs begot wrongs. If it's the latter then I won't waste my time with it.

It totally depends on how the actual matter of facts are depicted.

The latter depiction is a problem as that defines rape (as a serious crime) not by the lack of consent, but the morality of the victim. It's all too close to saying it's "right" for an evil female deserves to be raped.

Either that, or it's a typical anti-male bias where rape is considered an unforgivable crime against women, yet a proportional punishment for men. You know, the prison guard ignoring a inmate's cry for help from a rapist as he considers it "poetic justice".

I mean this response just doesn't work, it's like if a Yakuza kills a cop's son, then the cop goes and kills the Yakuza's son,

 

[zelda2fanboy]

If you ever get raped in the asshole, I would be very interested to know your feelings after the fact. I would venture to guess that they would be shame, humiliation, and an infinite well of anger. Perhaps you could be content with writing him a scathing note, and then deal with the mind rape that is the court system for the next however many fucking months trying to prove that you are not lying. If someone hits you, you hit them back.

Repeatedly in the asshole? Ever hear the expression "I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy?" I feel that applies here. And why would you even want to touch a "sweaty gross" guy's asshole? She wouldn't have to wait months. She had all the evidence she needed to have him locked up without bail. She made sure he wouldn't be able to do it again. She had him under her control. Hell, she could have killed him and dumped the body if she really wanted to make sure he would never rape again. The asshole rape was only there to inflict pain, and therefore, makes her a rapist. Most things in life are "grey areas." Rape is not.

So in your mind, it's okay to hit women, as long as they hit you first, right? And in your mind, if a woman raped you, it would be A-okay for you to rape her back, right? You said "If you dont get that then god protect the women you come into contact with." Let's agree to disagree and I'll say ditto on that sentiment to you as well. Good luck staying out of jail with that way of thinking.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Books can be screwed up. Characters can be screwed up. They are still often valid books and characters. The world isn't perfect, nor are protagonists.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Didn't have a problem with the scene at all, but then again, I'm a firm believer in eye for an eye.

Wait.... How is it eye for an eye?

Yeah she raped him back, but she also tattooed a giant fucking warning sign on his body and is actively tracking his movements to make sure he doesn't remove it.

That is not eye for an eye.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Snip

I'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't read the books at all. The Millennium Trilogy is a somewhat uneven trilogy of books. The first story is not actually centred on the character of Lisbeth Salander, despite the title, and that only serves to make her parts seem even more obscure. The second and third books in the trilogy more or less deal explicitly with her character and they help to give you a greater understanding of the character.

Basically (and without huge spoilers) Lisbeth has been abused by men her whole life, physically, mentally, sexually... something which has arguably helped to shape her into the sort of introverted and highly antisocial person we see in the books/movies. In learning to cope, she has made herself a very physically capable and independant person, albeit still lacking the ability to actually interact with people successfully. She is essentially a high functioning autistic, highly intelligent and quick to grasp complicated concepts but unable to control or understand her own emotions and feelings. Her awkward relationship with Blomkvist was downplayed terribly in the USA version but the original Swedish film nails her character perfectly.

As far as the scene you mentioned goes... Because she has a violent past and is considered to have serious mental defects she is under the protection/guidance of guardian; Bjurman is her newly assigned guardian. The man is in a position of power; he controls her finances and pretty much dictates what she does under the threat of making her whole life hell. Now consider that Lisbeth has created a very carefully constructed life, everything in its rightful place, everything ballanced in such a way that she can cope with it. Bjurman comes along and threatens to upset that. He then violates her. She is presented to us as a helpless child which only serves to make Bjurman's actions even more dastardly. There is no doubt in the reader/viewer's mind that Bjurman is the lowest most despicable pile of excrement on the planet.

From then on it is simply revenge, there's no denying that. But I think it's important to look at the act that inspired such hatred and understand why, more than justifying the actions that came after.

The book's original Swedish title was "Men who hate women" and as I understand it, Stieg Larsson was quite the activist within his own country. There's no doubt in my mind that some of his own personal bias shines through in his writings, which are far from perfect in themselves. But I think it's very important to understand the character before you can apply any form of judgement on their actions. Give the books a try, they may be hard going but there is no better way to understand the character of Lisbeth Salander. You might even find yourself empathising with her before the end.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

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?

We'd have fewer rapists running around, I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Fwee]

I guess that's how the author portrays a "Strong Woman"?