Rapist With The Dragon Tattoo

[Treblaine]

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...

The title as is printed in Sweden:

"Män som hatar kvinnor"

You can tell right away that there isn't a "Love, inverse of that" in that phrase, this very specifically translates as the positive "hate" emotion not "lack of love emotion".

Every source I can find to translate that phrase puts it as "Men who hate women" with no mention of Love or lack of love.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

So, I just watched the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (the American version) and I didn't like it. Granted, I never got bored and it was really well photographed, but I can't shake the feeling that that was an incredible waste of time and a sense of shock that so many people like it. I had no idea what was going on until about the last thirty minutes. All of the investigation stuff was sifting through photos and names of people I had no reference point for, and basically the case hinged on two pictures that apparently had such an obvious correlation that two characters figured it out separately on their own.

But before this turns into a user review / rant and before the dozens of people shouting that the book / other movie were way better, there's one point of contention in this movie that bugged the hell out of me. There's about 15 to 20 minutes of this lengthy 2 hour 36 minute movie devoted to a detailed rape and revenge sequence. I have no idea why it's there, I don't know how it serves the plot, I don't know why it was as explicit as it was, and I don't know why people haven't called bullshit on it yet. For those who haven't seen it

Spoiler

Lisbeth Salander is a computer hacker working for various companies under the table. She gets her money from a trust fund and dresses like a person who might do drugs or have trouble with the law. She has to go to "some guy" to declare her mentally competent and he precedes to ask her to perform oral sex on him to get her money. She agrees. Later, she goes to his apartment, where he handcuffs her to a bed, and as the movie makes sure to tell us, anally rapes her on screen. For some reason, the guy tries to be all nice and friendly afterwards like he doesn't know what he just did. She plans for a little bit and goes back to his apartment. He tries to "apologize" or something and she tasers him. She then handcuffs him, anally rapes him with a glass dildo, and says that she'll blackmail him with secret footage she took of the rape. Then, she tattoos "rapist pig" on his body.

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. Isn't rape categorically wrong and a crime no matter who commits it to who? Why does this beloved (from what I've seen online) character get let off the hook? One could argue that he "deserved" it or was "asking for it," but by definition, no one deserves or asks for rape. It's not possible. It feels pretty despicable and disgusting to paint that act of violence as justifiable, which I'm pretty sure this movie does. Maybe I'm weird and looking at it the wrong way, but it feels fucked up.

It's a revenge flick (sort of, mixed with a mystery, but there is a heavy focus on revenge even at the end)... They get made all the time, Kill Bill for example, and usually they just murder the person. Do you not have a problem with those films?

The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you.

I, personally, with my desensitized outlook on films (it's fake, and as such you can always logic out that no one is getting raped really), found the scene where she rapes him to be quite satisfying, enjoyable even (not in a sexual way, mind you).

However I found the scene where he rapes her TERRIBLY uncomfortable and fucked up... (though again, I was easily able to disconnect since, again, it's a movie. Plus how distractingly hot the actress was @_@) Yet I don't hear you mention how it was fucked up...

So, yeah, it's not that fucked up, I've seen worse, and that you find her raping him to be so appalling is really strange...

 

[Treblaine]

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.

There are other ways of getting your own way than than rape. Only evil rapist think rape is a solution to "get what they want".

If a government agent captured a terrorist who was keeping secret information that threatened his country... it would never be accepted by the people of that country for the agent to rape his prisoner till they broke down and gave them everything they wanted. Rape is inexcusable. Torture is bad enough and rape is a particularly horrible kind of torture.

And Lisbeth wasn't even doing it for a selfless reason like saving thousands of innocent lives from a sudden violent death, it was to increase her personal wealth. She doesn't NEED the money, she can survive and thrive without it.

So she is a rapist for personal profit.

As to legal independence... she could get a second opinion. I mean it wouldn't be impossible even if she never wanted anyone to know about the rape (or didn't want to go through a trial with the possibility of cross examination and defamation on the stand), she could demand a female psychiatrist though really she should have reported thefor the sake of justice

This is the nonsensical thing, this guy is both her legal guardian and THE PERSON WHO DECIDES HER INDEPENDENCE!!! That's a blatantly obvious conflict of interest, there would be every incentive to misrepresent the inheritor as mentally non-competent so they can keep the money for themselves.

And she has a job working for a security company, so that's pretty god damn solid proof that she is independent and mentally competent so she seems pretty independent already.

These books are treasonous to feminism as a movement that has almost single handedly pushed forward to acceptance that "Rape is NEVER justified" in the modern western world without any qualifiers of religion, dishonour or "parental consent". This is a big fuck you to that idea that feminists fought so hard for.

You have to admit, you'd NEVER accept the inverse, if a man raped and tortured a woman to get money out of her that character would be totally irredeemable and unsympathetic.

Irony Captcha: book reading

 

[Treblaine]

It's a revenge flick (sort of, mixed with a mystery, but there is a heavy focus on revenge even at the end)... They get made all the time, Kill Bill for example, and usually they just murder the person. Do you not have a problem with those films?

The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you.

I, personally, with my desensitized outlook on films (it's fake, and as such you can always logic out that no one is getting raped really), found the scene where she rapes him to be quite satisfying, enjoyable even (not in a sexual way, mind you).

However I found the scene where he rapes her TERRIBLY uncomfortable and fucked up... (though again, I was easily able to disconnect since, again, it's a movie. Plus how distractingly hot the actress was @_@) Yet I don't hear you mention how it was fucked up...

So, yeah, it's not that fucked up, I've seen worse, and that you find her raping him to be so appalling is really strange...

Killing a rapist serves a purpose: they can't rape any more. Because they are dead. Castration doesn't, rape comes from the psyche via the genitals. Castrated rapist have gone on raping by other means. Lisbeth used a dildo.

Rape does not serve that purpose. Tattooing him doesn't serve that purpose. The purpose was (also) to extort money out of him as it was revenge.

The death sentence was the punishment in early civilisations simply because imprisonment for life was impractical. Especially for how political instability can easily lead to people being freed far too soon but death is permanent. It is somewhat justified to kill rapists if they cannot be guaranteed to be imprisoned and stopped from hurting anyone else again.

Death Penalty is not "necessary" in this modern world where there aren't mass-breakouts from prisons by rogue military leaders. It's entirely practical to lock people up for their entire natural life. Death is an excess. Targeted killing by drones seems to be for where the suspected terrorists cannot practically be captured.

"The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you."

That's still excusing an inexcusable crime. Not an endorsement of rape but condoning of rape as justifiable, ever, is despicable.

That's the problem, it's one thing to have rape in a work of fiction if it makes the character irredeemably evil, but Salander is still depicted as a heroic character who is hypocritically defined as an antagonist against rapists. Which is an unbearable hypocrisy.

OP is a terrible person.

Why? Do you know him personally? If it was something from the original post, what is so bad about it that it single handedly makes OP a terrible person?

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

well, from what little i know of the film, Lisbeth Salander is not meant to be a bastion of society.
that said, if it was real life, i wouldnt feel sorry for the guy. I would agree with the OP, both should go to prison. her attack was premeditated after all

on a side note, any guy who wants his girl to try anal (not anal rape) should be willing to let her have a play around there too, see what its like on the recieving end

 

[Nico4]

Haven't seen the american version yet... I saw the swedish version though, and that bored the living daylights out of me.

 

[Nami nom noms]

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.

For once I agree with Moviebob

It was the same conclusion I came to after reading the book way back; Lisbeth is a pretty unrealistic, male idolisation of a character. I would even go as far as to say blomqvist (spelling?) is a direct representation of the author himself.

 

[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...

The title as is printed in Sweden:

"Män som hatar kvinnor"

You can tell right away that there isn't a "Love, inverse of that" in that phrase, this very specifically translates as the positive "hate" emotion not "lack of love emotion".

Every source I can find to translate that phrase puts it as "Men who hate women" with no mention of Love or lack of love.

Well I guess that's that, in Mexico it was translated like that so.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Killing a rapist serves a purpose: they can't rape any more. Because they are dead. Castration doesn't, rape comes from the psyche via the genitals. Castrated rapist have gone on raping by other means. Lisbeth used a dildo.

Rape does not serve that purpose. Tattooing him doesn't serve that purpose. The purpose was (also) to extort money out of him as it was revenge.

The death sentence was the punishment in early civilisations simply because imprisonment for life was impractical. Especially for how political instability can easily lead to people being freed far too soon but death is permanent. It is somewhat justified to kill rapists if they cannot be guaranteed to be imprisoned and stopped from hurting anyone else again.

Death Penalty is not "necessary" in this modern world where there aren't mass-breakouts from prisons by rogue military leaders. It's entirely practical to lock people up for their entire natural life. Death is an excess. Targeted killing by drones seems to be for where the suspected terrorists cannot practically be captured.

"The creator isn't saying that you should go out and do that, but he is saying he wouldn't blame you."

That's still excusing an inexcusable crime. Not an endorsement of rape but condoning of rape as justifiable, ever, is despicable.

That's the problem, it's one thing to have rape in a work of fiction if it makes the character irredeemably evil, but Salander is still depicted as a heroic character who is hypocritically defined as an antagonist against rapists. Which is an unbearable hypocrisy.

Fair enough, I can see the hypocrisy, but as human's we've been functioning for ages on the concept of an eye for an eye and I really don't think that's going anywhere. Also Humans in general are a hypocritical species. I mean in America tax breaks for the rich usually pass with a big push from the lower and middle class due to the absurd logic that one day they'll be rich... So many more examples of this, don't get me started.

As such, hypocrisy isn't so much an issues, especially when it comes to enforcing the laws, which has always been rather hypocritical.

What I find amusing is you're putting fourth life in jail as a solution... Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but rape in jail is kind of common (70,000 every year based on a 2007 survey, and mind you that's from questionnaires so you have to actually increase that number for all the guys who don't want to admit it)... So I mean sending them to jail for life would basically mean raping them for the rest of their lives... Which I'm totally comfortable with, however I don't believe that life in prison is a common sentence for rapists these days...

At the end of the day, rape is probably the worst crime you can commit that doesn't involve poisoning the planet or mass genocide (I still consider it worse than a single murder), and as such it really deserves the harshest punishment imaginable.

Honestly, it's subjects like this, and only subjects like this might I note, that make me wish the psychological reprogramming torture of Clockwork Orange was an option. As much as Alex may have been a somewhat sympathetic character at the end due to the harsh nature of the treatment, if someone like that was really running around the streets I wouldn't give two shits about him being tortured into a new lifestyle. The catch 22 here though is that you know it wouldn't be criminals they'd subject to reprogramming, it would probably Occupy members and political activists.

 

[ElPatron]

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."

Being "offended" doesn't give you any special right. The act of saying that is redundant in practical terms because it does exactly −273.15° Celsius - absolute zero. Ke$ha is using her right to free speech and you can actively avoid hearing those songs.

Look at this my way: what if I am offended by gay people holding hands? Or maybe be offended by you being offended by Ke$ha songs? I can't force other people to do things my way. Saying that I am offended by something doesn't mean I am right.

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.

Exactly - you were talking about someone else about Stieg Larsson. Not how his feminist ideals inspired the rape scene.

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.

Yeah, I was "just saying". If Lisbeth's revenge had failed, it wouldn't end well. The whole series is about the justice system treating her like trash.

 

[JimB]

Being "offended" doesn't give you any special right.

What? When did I say it did?

Ke$ha is using her right to free speech and you can actively avoid hearing those songs.

So what? Who said I have to agree with the way she's using it?

Exactly: You were talking about someone else about Stieg Larsson.

...Yes, I know. I said that already. I said that right in the bit of text you quoted when writing the above response.

I honestly don't know what's going on here, but I think you and I are having two very different conversations.

 

[ElPatron]

Being "offended" doesn't give you any special right.

What? When did I say it did?

Attention - Batman spoiler:

Spoiler

See that part when the guy in the suit tells Bane that there isn't money to steal? Bane says "Then why are you here?"

Same principle applies. If you really believe what you just said you wouldn't have dedicated so many words to just disagree with someone who is far too "important" to even read your post.

Ke$ha is using her right to free speech and you can actively avoid hearing those songs.

So what? Who said I have to agree with the way she's using it?

[/quote]

Nobody?

But you don't have to make a big deal about it either. If people made less of a big deal out of things, this issue of offensive lyrics would have never really been a problem.

 

[JimB]

Same principle applies.

You baffle me, ElPatron. Let's back up a second; take this thing back to formula. What right do you think I am claiming I have?

If you really believe what you just said you wouldn't have dedicated so many words to just disagree with someone who is far too "important" to even read your post.

What? So...I would only ***** about a musician I don't like if I think doing so bestows upon me some as-yet unnamed privilege?

You don't have to make a big deal about [Ke$ha's insistence on calling her music empowering] either.

I...I have no idea how I'm supposed to respond to this. Of course I don't have to make a big deal about it. I also don't have to come to this site and view the videos here. So what? Is your point that people should only do what they have to do?

If people made less of a big deal out of things, this issue of offensive lyrics would have never really been a problem.

When was it ever a problem for anyone but me? What are you talking about? Did someone else bring it up while I wasn't looking?

 

[museofdoom]

snippety snip snip

I'm a huge fan of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo personally. I've read all the books, and I actually really enjoyed the film!

I agree that the rape scene is graphic, but it's realistic. I am kind of glad the director chose not to water it down. Rape is taken far too lightly in our society. I think by making the scene as graphic as they did kind of gives the viewer a slap in the face with reality which is cold and unpleasant.

And as for how Lisbeth dealt with it, it obviously wasn't the right way to go about things, but it was for her character. Lisbeth avoids authority, so she deals with things in her own way. Lisbeth is portrayed as a highly functioning sociopath with a "no fucks given" attitude. So I the rape and her revenge were important to developing her character.

I didn't read through the entire thread, (and I won't because I can tell there's going to be a lot of misogynistic commentary on this one) so I'm sorry if I just repeated what someone else has already said.

 

[Treblaine]

The title as is printed in Sweden:

"Män som hatar kvinnor"

You can tell right away that there isn't a "Love, inverse of that" in that phrase, this very specifically translates as the positive "hate" emotion not "lack of love emotion".

Every source I can find to translate that phrase puts it as "Men who hate women" with no mention of Love or lack of love.

Well I guess that's that, in Mexico it was translated like that so.

Hmm, did you say the Mexican release was (literally) "Men who don't Love women" in English, or was it in Spanish which translated to english as that?

In either case we are getting into 6-degrees of translation or "chinsese whispers".

 

[Treblaine]

Fair enough, I can see the hypocrisy, but as human's we've been functioning for ages on the concept of an eye for an eye and I really don't think that's going anywhere. Also Humans in general are a hypocritical species. I mean in America tax breaks for the rich usually pass with a big push from the lower and middle class due to the absurd logic that one day they'll be rich... So many more examples of this, don't get me started.

As such, hypocrisy isn't so much an issues, especially when it comes to enforcing the laws, which has always been rather hypocritical.

What I find amusing is you're putting fourth life in jail as a solution... Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but rape in jail is kind of common (70,000 every year based on a 2007 survey, and mind you that's from questionnaires so you have to actually increase that number for all the guys who don't want to admit it)... So I mean sending them to jail for life would basically mean raping them for the rest of their lives... Which I'm totally comfortable with, however I don't believe that life in prison is a common sentence for rapists these days...

At the end of the day, rape is probably the worst crime you can commit that doesn't involve poisoning the planet or mass genocide (I still consider it worse than a single murder), and as such it really deserves the harshest punishment imaginable.

Honestly, it's subjects like this, and only subjects like this might I note, that make me wish the psychological reprogramming torture of Clockwork Orange was an option. As much as Alex may have been a somewhat sympathetic character at the end due to the harsh nature of the treatment, if someone like that was really running around the streets I wouldn't give two shits about him being tortured into a new lifestyle. The catch 22 here though is that you know it wouldn't be criminals they'd subject to reprogramming, it would probably Occupy members and political activists.

This subject is complicated enough without the politics of tax law... but that's not to say that taxes make no sense therefore nothing needs to make sense. Taxes and the politics that lead to their change are complex but not unfathomable. For example, the people don't vote by referendum for tax-cut for the rich, they vote for politicians who talk very little of tax-cuts for rich then give the rich tax-cuts for other reasons than the actual will of the middle class. Classic example with Romney he talks of tax-cuts for average earners then reveals his definition of "Average earner" was around $250'000 per year.

I don't think we have been living under "eye for an eye" justice, not for hundreds of years, and not in america at all, not since the Eighth Amendment that forbade "cruel and unusual punishment". To spite how many crimes there are against the body, corporal punishment was been absent for centuries, certainly if someone lost an eye or tooth in a bar fight the court ordered punishment is not to then surgically remove the eye or tooth of the offender. It's a fine and jail term if anything.

Remember the original "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" rationale was introduced back in an even worse days where it was "a LIFE for an eye", this basically said that punishment must not be disproportionate to the crime. The problem is today psychos in power want to discard our humane ideals so fall back to The Bible to get an endorsement of cruel and unusual punishment.

Psychological reprogramming of clockwork orange in nothing but Aversion Therapy. It doesn't change the root problem in their psyche... it just mentally cripples them from acting on it in the short term. In a nutshell, it's Pavlov's dogs associating a stimuli with a response, in this case a needly negative response. But aversion therapy always wears off with time, just like if someone with severe arachnophobia will eventually stop being afraid of spiders if they have to live in spider-land. Aversion therapy is used today but mainly on religious homosexuals coerced to go to "re-programming camps". It doesn't work for long and doesn't change.

Installing empathy is the "treatment" for rapists, it is the thought process we all of us have to stop us hurting people as we consider and value how they would feel if we did any certain thing. This works on criminals who hurt people but obviously cannot be applied and misused to "treat" the non-problem of homosexuality as homosexuals basically don't hurt anyone, their "crime" according to many religions is love, loving the wrong gender.

But there is another thing, even if a rapist has become mentally "normal" and is no longer predisposed to rape, that's not a get out of jail free card. They still committed a serious crime, who is to say that society wants them back so soon? No. A long jail term is mandatory for such serious crimes unless there is a grassroots movement in the wider community that they are ready to accept the reformed offender back, particularly from the victim and their loved ones. Of course it could only get to that point if psychologists thought they had truly reformed and that always takes time to really be sure, like a decade of close monitoring.

 

[Treblaine]

snippety snip snip

I'm a huge fan of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo personally. I've read all the books, and I actually really enjoyed the film!

I agree that the rape scene is graphic, but it's realistic. I am kind of glad the director chose not to water it down. Rape is taken far too lightly in our society. I think by making the scene as graphic as they did kind of gives the viewer a slap in the face with reality which is cold and unpleasant.

An example PLEASE! Rape is the biggest taboo in our society, it is less tolerated than murder and torture and dismemberment.

In our media you can instantly make a the most vile murderous sadistic character seem comparatively good by pitting them against a rapist.

And as for how Lisbeth dealt with it, it obviously wasn't the right way to go about things, but it was for her character. Lisbeth avoids authority, so she deals with things in her own way. Lisbeth is portrayed as a highly functioning sociopath with a "no fucks given" attitude. So I the rape and her revenge were important to developing her character.

I didn't read through the entire thread, (and I won't because I can tell there's going to be a lot of misogynistic commentary on this one) so I'm sorry if I just repeated what someone else has already said.

Hmm, rape is part of "avoiding authority"? So anti-rape laws are in any way authoritarian?!?!?

Why do such excuse work for Lisbeth when she rapes him but not for the lawyer when he rapes her?

I was wondering, would you accept such excuses for a character like - say, Duke Nukem - if he raped women for his personal satisfaction and to force them to give him money and power? It certainly would be part of his character and his "no fucks given attitude".

 

[SpaceBat]

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

Hence the last sentence in my post. As I said, she is clearly not a mentally sound individual, which is why I do not attack her behavior in the movie. I'm sure the scene was meant to be disturbing and show the mental state she's in, which is why the entire ordeal is only a problem if the movie depicts her to be a person with excellent morality and great mental health.

It's the people here on the escapist who believe that rape can be a justifiable act that rub me the wrong way.

 

[Treblaine]

I honestly can't believe that some people here believe that rape is in any way justifiable. I understand people having questionable morality when it comes to justice (Such as confusing it with revenge), but I never expected so many escapist users to come up with such vile shit as they're doing now.

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

If you expect rape victims to be irrational to the extent of thinking rape is okay, then that is an expectation of insanity, that all rape victims should be imprisoned in case they irrationally try to hurt someone.

No. The fact is that while rape is extremely traumatic with lasting severe effects it doesn't make women incapable of making rational decisions on issues like "is it right to anally rape his person or not". Remember, we are talking about rationally deciding if right or wrong, not deciding whether to do it or not do it.

If anything rape would make people LESS likely to rape as they realise how horrible it is they wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even their worst enemies. Everyone reacts and copes differently, but the affect is almost always extremely negative.

This idea that rape makes victims irrational enough to rape is just wrong.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I honestly can't believe that some people here believe that rape is in any way justifiable. I understand people having questionable morality when it comes to justice (Such as confusing it with revenge), but I never expected so many escapist users to come up with such vile shit as they're doing now.

You mean like expecting a rape victim to act rationally? -_-

If you expect rape victims to be irrational to the extent of thinking rape is okay, then that is an expectation of insanity, that all rape victims should be imprisoned in case they irrationally try to hurt someone.

No. The fact is that while rape is extremely traumatic with lasting severe effects it doesn't make women incapable of making rational decisions on issues like "is it right to anally rape his person or not". Remember, we are talking about rationally deciding if right or wrong, not deciding whether to do it or not do it.

If anything rape would make people LESS likely to rape as they realise how horrible it is they wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even their worst enemies. Everyone reacts and copes differently, but the affect is almost always extremely negative.

This idea that rape makes victims irrational enough to rape is just wrong.

I believe you've either misunderstood my statement, or you're malforming my statement into an alternative interpretation in order to augment it's approachability. I didn't specifically state rape victims inevitably raped others, obviously. I stated it was wrong to prophesize utterly rational decisions when discussing the behaviour of a rape victim.

Rape recovery is individualistic; subsequent effects may differ. To establish "proportions" of vengeful actions or how much an individual may be effected is extremely problematic.