So the point of the show is not to focus viewers on the question of what really happened and whether there are free-roaming individuals who deserve punishment or public shaming. What then is the point? Having watched the whole series, I'd say it is to open up thinking about the cyclical cause-and-effect of sexual abuse.
I encourage discussion in the comments from people who have seen the show, so I am not asking you to avoid spoilers. If you haven't seen the show, I'd recommend avoiding reading spoilers. Here's the trailer, which spoils a little, so it would be better to just start watching, unless you're wary of a show on this subject and need some encouragement.
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
I came here for the spoilers.
Kathy Bates wants her Misery character back?
It was a "wild ride" and we found it interesting.
The [almost] co-dependence between Richard's character and his stalker is something that I had seen done/discussed elsewhere in abusive relationships of this sort. The physical abuse relationship dynamic (battered spouse) [in my opinion] gets more exposure and so I believe more understood by the general public. Seeing the co-dependency in this complex set of relationships involving sexual abuse, stalking, and self doubt/loathing was unique to me.
The scene with his parents [where he "comes clean"], I found very moving/touching as well.
You mentioned this the other day. Since you liked it, I gave it a go last night. Watched 15-20 minutes could not get into it.
Did I not give it enough time? Does it get better?
Or perhaps it's not my kind of show
John Henry
I’ve seen most of it and have enjoyed it so far. Some of the subject matter is very heavy. Reminds me a lot of Michaela Coe’s I May Destroy You series, which also explores similar themes of sexual abuse.
Looks boring.
The trailer tells me all I need to know. Hard pass.
Sometimes fiction is stranger than fiction.
Now that i think about it one of the crucial difference between this show and I May Destroy You is that the main character of Baby Reindeer is not as immediately sympathetic. But as it goes you’re forced to identify with him even though his flaws are very apparent. It’s a little bit more challenging and i like that.
But i think i’m close to reaching my limit on comedies that deal so deeply with traumatic events like this.
So, is this #believeallmen"? Or is there some difference?
Watched it and spent most of the time railing at his stupidity. But I guess it stands as a historical document of our post-adult culture.
How many reindeer die in the show?
I watched the whole thing and enjoyed it. The actors and script are excellent. But I don’t feel any need to further analyze it. On to the next show!
Depressing show in depressing times. "Weak male protagonist" appears to be a thing now.
The highlight for me was in the diner where he ordered "decaf".
I'm halfway through. I have guesses but so far no confirmation.
Ok, my main guess has more or less been confirmed.
My secondary guess was a generation off, but I suspect - to the extent that the while story is true - even that prior-generation trauma explains a lot.
I worked with sex offenders for years. All the research as of when I semi-retired in 2017 and stopped following it - ALL of it - that tried to tie sexual criminality to sexual abuse failed to account for genetics with any thoroughness. I think you can see some influence on behavior independent of heritability if you squint hard and read enough of the studies. Emanations from the penumbra and all that. But it is not good evidence. That remains to be found, because the researchers who study this - or more likely, the people approving the grants and editing the journals - start with the environmentalist assumption and seem entirely unaware that the abusers are also the suppliers of the genes.
AVI, my secondary guess was
[Spoiler alert!]
paternal sexual abuse, which turned out not to be the case, but the father was himself abused - which I thought might indicate a predisposition to victimization, or alternatively might have affected the father-son relationship in such a way that the son was more predisposed to victimization. I have reasons in my life to wonder about this.
So thank you for your on-the-ground perspective!
Hm. Although actually, it is well documented, I understand, that when an unrelated adult male lives in the same house as minor children, those children are many times more likely (several hundreds of percent) to suffer sexual abuse.
I guess it may be possible to delve into this statistic and maybe find that the victimized children are the children of a mother victimized in childhood, who *therefore* couldn't achieve or maintain a healthy relationship with a man and for genetic or environmental reasons chose another abuser for the step-relationship, and *therefore* unwittingly exposed her children to another abuser, to whom they were genetically vulnerable because they inherited their mother's underlying vulnerability.
But both Occam's Razor and, frankly, human decency suggest that the problem lies with the behavior of the unrelated man (in these cases) rather than with the genetics of the man or the children.
So. I'm willing to posit the possibility of a genetic vulnerability to abuse as well as a genetic predisposition to abuse. But - genetics is not destiny, so I'm going to want to prosecute abusers to the full extent of the law, even if all it does is discourage people on the genetic margins, so to speak.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा