Two Theories on the Representation of Rape (Inspired by Dragon Tattoo and Precious)

As I mentioned in my last post, I saw the first showing of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo that I could. In general, I liked it.  I didn't think it was amazing, but it certainly wasn't bad.  It was a good thriller, and I think Fincher made some general good choices about what to cut and what to keep.  I have a lot of little, minor questions, but one big one is bugging me.  Obviously from this post's title, it's about the representation of rape and sexual assault, so I understand many will not want to read it.  But I would love comments because this does bug me.  Also, I will be giving major spoilers of the book and the two film versions of it.  If you want to know nothing, stop reading now.

My question has to do with how the rape of women and the rape of men are treated and why those differences exist.  I'll start with the book since it all starts there.  It is about the sadistic torture of women.  We see that in multiple ways.  The entire mystery ends up being about a father and son who tortured women their entire lives, and that is a separate storyline from Lisbeth Salander's own rapes.  In the book, we get graphic descriptions of these rapes.  Personally, as I've noted before, I think the book does a pretty good job of balancing how much to say.  On one hand, Larsson does not shy away from the subject, which is good.  I think too many books, films, and TV shows say too little and allow audiences to continue denying the severity of rape (though this is changing and not true with all examples, of course).  At the same time, he does not say everything he could.  When Salander suffers her tortuous rape at the hands of Nils Burjman, we know it goes on for ninety minutes, but we don't get a full description of it, which would be too much, but we do recognize how horrible it is.

In the book, a few men rape a lot of women.  Each of the three men is punished, though not within a legal context.  The Swedish film and the American film include each of these men and what they do.  The final man who commits the most assaults over several decades is the one that Blomkvist and Salander end up searching for.  Blomkvist shows up at this man's house and ends up trapped in that man's torture chamber.  In the book, this man makes it obvious that he is about to rape Blomkvist as well: he cuts his clothes off with a knife and then grabs Blomkvist and gives him an aggressive kiss.

Neither film shows this kiss.  The American film does show Blomkvist strung up and partially stripped, and the man comments that he has never had a man in this torture chamber or been with a man since he himself was raped by his father.  The kiss is gone.  And I wonder why?  The films have no problem depicting the rape of women, and they have no problem showing Salander's rape of the man who raped her.  But they pull back when it comes to representing the rape of a man who is not a sadistic pig.  Why?

Theory One: It is always okay to depict the rape of any adult woman by any adult man, but it is rarely okay to show the rape of a man unless he clearly "deserves it."

This got me thinking of another film that centers on rape, Precious.  In that film, Precious is raped her entire life by her father.  But she is also raped continually by her mother.  In the film, that is only alluded to in one scene when her mother calls Precious into her bedroom.  I can't remember the exact words she said, but it was something general about coming in to help Momma, and her mother is in bed.  I know many intelligent people who did not read this scene as the rape of a daughter by her mother because they expressed shock when I mentioned it or when they read it in the book.  I've taught the book the film is based upon, Push, several times.  Students who have seen the movie before the book are often shocked when we get to the two scenes that mention the mother's sexual abuse of her daughter.

Theory Two: It is always okay to depict the rape of a child of any gender if that rapist is a man, but it is rarely okay to show it if the rapist is a woman.

Why does this matter?  We live in a culture that often does whatever it can to ignore the severity of rape and sexual assault.  We think we are a culture that faces it, but I do not see a lot of truth in that.  It is very, very true that a strong, strong majority of rapes are committed by men on women.  I want to repeat that to be clear: a strong, strong majority of rapes are committed by men on women.  But not all rapes happen that way.  When I talk in general about rape, I always try not to use gendered language because rape is not just something men do to women.

Many, many people who study the rape of men point out that a major reason men who are raped do not come forward is because they worry that they will not be believed, that they will be laughed at, or that they will be thought of as less than a man.  The continued invisibility of the rape of men and boys plays a major role in these feelings.  We are also hearing more and more stories of women playing roles in the rape of children either in engaging in rape themselves or in creating situations that allow men to abuse children.  Again, those who study these cases say that the survivors often do not report it because they think they will not be believed.  Yes, there are a few cases of women who rape men, but that is incredibly rare.  That does not mean it never happens or it should never be represented or discussed.  But I am most curious right now about the rape of men by men and the rape of children by women because 1) it seems like I am continually hearing more and more stories of such cases in "real life" and 2) I am rarely seeing the depiction of such cases in mass media.

My two theories allow society in general to remain in denial about certain forms of rape and sexual abuse.  This is the worst thing to do to survivors of any age or gender.  This is why I speak up the way I do.  Rape is always wrong.  Murder can sometimes be okay such as in cases of self-defense and perhaps in certain wars.  Rape is never permissible, however, but I am not sure we have moved much further than where we were as a society once women started speaking out clearly and strongly about their own rapes by men.  That is still difficult, and we still live in a world with much blaming the victim and slut-shaming.  It's changing slowly as long as many of us refuse to shut up about rape and sexual abuse in all of its forms.  In general, though, these two theories seem to be coming truer and truer over time.

Do my two theories ring true to you?  Do I just need to accept that this will change over time and not focus on things like a kiss between a rapist and a journalist in Dragon Tattoo and focus instead on the bigger story?  Anyone prompted to have any other thoughts by what I've written?  Obviously, I care about these issues but know my perspective may be limited as all perspectives are.  While I may never "get it right," I certainly want to try to be, and I'll take whatever help any reader can offer.

More Obsessed with Dragon Tattoo Than Lisbeth Salander is with Nils Burjman's Whereabouts

A few years ago, the husband made a rather astute observation about me: I treat pretty much everything in my life in an all or nothing way.  I get obsessed easily.  This was a time when I was ignoring him because I was focused on something else, and he was starting to get upset until it hit him that this is just who I am, and that it was not personal to him.  He could point out times when I acted with the same laser focus toward a range of people, places, and things.  I had never thought about it before, but he is completely right.

I only mention it now because anyone who has seen anything I have been doing online knows I'm obsessed with The Girl with the Dragon Tatto right now.  And what is so bizarre is that I had not read any book or seen any movie until two weeks ago this past Friday.  When I was flying to Houston, I was at home looking at my books and thinking that I really did not want to read anything that I intended to take seriously or was going to use in my research.  Add that to the fact that a few people had asked me what I thought of the novel, if it crossed the line into rape porn or if it handled the depiction of violence well.  So I decided to buy a copy at the airport and read it on the trip.  As I noted on Twitter, I finished it on my flight out of Houston to Atlanta, so I bought the second one in Atlanta and finished it in NYC before I returned home a week ago yesterday.  One week ago tonight, I watched the Swedish version of the first film.  And I've been reading all news articles related to the upcoming film that I can find.

I'm planning to see the film at 7:00 on Tuesday when it premieres (I'll be at the AMC in Plainville if anyone local is also planning to see it then).  This morning, the husband asked me if I was going to spend the rest of the week complaining about all the changes Fincher made in his film version (Fincher has already said he changed the ending, which has raised my ire).  I told him I would respond the same way he did when he first saw the first of the Star Wars prequels and could not shut up about Jar Jar Binks and the future Darth Vadar yelling "Yippee!" in the pod race.

I also told him that I'm now reading The Hunger Games, so my obsession should be switching soon.

Oh, and I do not think the book crosses the line into rape porn.  A writer, artist, or filmmaker has to tred a very fine line between revealing too much or too little.  I actually get just as annoyed at too little because I think it helps people ignore the seriousness of sexual assault.  To me, the book was a perfect balance.  The movie?  We'll see, and I won't be able to stop thinking about it for days, I'm sure.

Chris Brown, Police Violence, Macbeth, and More

• With the power outage, I have not been able to read a couple of things I had marked a few weeks ago, like this interview with Lee Gutkind about narrative medicine.  CNF may be offering an online course in it next year.  That could be interesting.  I do wonder, though, if we are starting to create a false category with "narrative medicine" since so much can go under it.  But you can get an MA in it.
• This tweet from Elon James White is fantastic.  After years of unarmed black men sometimes being not just shot but killed by police, it seems especially poignant.  Now white people are experiencing something that has become normal for so many.
• Chris Brown will never get it.  He thinks that his beating of Rhianna should never be mentioned again.  As I wrote over at Vulture, "If Jane Fonda can still get called Hanoi Jane by some people for things she did thirty years ago that were not crimes, Chris Brown needs to accept that this will follow him for the rest of his life, especially since it's a felony, and those are supposed to follow you the rest of your life. It's why you have to report all felony convictions whenever you apply for anything like a job or passport. Don't plead guilty to a crime if you can't do that time. And for felonies, that time is, in some form, forever."  These outbursts of his (like the one a few months ago after Good Morning America) signal that he may just lose it sometime and assault a reporter or someone else, and then it'll be real jail time.  But he can get help; he just has to get it now.
• Several people pointed me to this article about how female comedians can supposedly get away with things male comedians cannot, like joking about rape.  I didn't leave a comment over there, but I almost asked why women who have never been raped have a greater chance of getting away with joking about rape than a man who has been raped.
• I (barely) got tickets to see Sleep No More my last night in NYC.  I really can't wait.  I always feel like I miss the big stuff, but I won't be missing this one.  Since there's no dialogue, I think I need to reread Macbeth for the first time in over twenty years so I can catch how the movement, costumes, and set design are telling the story.  Supposedly, every line of the play is embedded somewhere (and the play is free on Amazon).