Is he in love with her, too? Or is she just falling for men who "protect" her...cause it's heart-breaking if its the latter...and wonderful if it's the former.
It's not all that surprising to hear. He's the first man in her life that has shown her kindness, care, and has her safety at heart. Of course she's fallen in love with him.
If he's a truly kind man, though, he'll steer her towwards counseling and away from a romantic relationship, at least at this stage. She's in no state of mind to be dating.
That poor woman, what an awful situation to be in. If it's true, he should quit as her body guard. After what she's been through being in a relationship with anyone who has some sort of power over you just seems like an awful idea to me. If they want to pursue it, he should get himself a replacement
I thought the reason why tabloids could comment on celebrity's lives was because they had thrust themselves into the limelight. I thought private people's were just that ... private.
@westvillagegirl (exiled in chicago): I agree. This woman did not seek fame at all -- I really feel reporting things about her outside of the legal case is a a horrible invasion of privacy. I wish we as a society could get some common sense about this stuff.
@shorty63136: I am a cynic, but I doubt that this soon after leaving such an abusive situation, a healthy and loving relationship is not possible for her.
@shorty63136: But they won't. She's a public story now, swept into headlines unwillingly and now a part of a grisly, gruesome, and fascinating story, which the public does not want to let go of. The modern era of communication makes us the worst of voyeurs.
@MissyMcCLung: I was thinking the same thing. It's really easy to see how she could fall for the guy protecting her, after just having been rescued from the most horrific situation we could imagine.
@MissyMcCLung & NefariousNewt: I know. But in the grand scheme of things, the only thing we can do is wish her the best. I'm feeling optimistic this morning.
@shorty63136: Calling Sandra Brown! Calling Sandra Brown! I guess you guys just cannot see all the romantic potential here. Beautiful, broken girl, hunky, handsome bodyguard. Six children?
@Beat Girl (formerly Miss Carrie Nation): Most of the feminists on here were a-ok with an Iranian court allowing a woman to drop acid into the eyes of a man in retribution. I mean, Iran courts are known for their fair and humane punishments...
It is really disheartening to see some of the reactions, but even though it's Jezebel, it's the internet, so I'm not exactly shocked to see the worst in people come out.
There is no way to make this psychotic rapist a-hole get what he deserves without us being inhumane, so I wish I could leave that to the rest of the natural world.
I just hope he gets a case of flesh-eating bacteria, his dick gets all necrotic, and anesthetics and painkillers fail to work. I hope that he gets "locked in" his own brain, never to escape the pain of the lesions and his own deranged thoughts.
I totally applaud a justice system that truly aims to rehabilitate rather than just punish (and can see how bonding with animals could lead to compassion for people), but...Jesus.
@MissFiFi: But regular old run of the mill rape and murder doesn't? Just because we're desensitised doesn't make those attacks less horrific and terrifying.
@pandorasmittens: Thank you. I felt alone in my bewilderment, again.
Perhaps I should just walk from these threads, but I find it honestly so very disheartening to see people veering from my definition of reasonable reactions so wildly.
@SarahMC: The way I see it, everyone is good and bad in varying measures, mental illness or not. The word evil suggests that someone is 100% bad, and irredeemably so. I don't believe a Good vs Evil dichotomy exists within humanity, rather within humans as individuals.
No one wants to admit that there are probably some 'good' traits within Fritzl, but it's virtually undeniable in my book. No one is born evil.
@pandorasmittens: HE is not evil, but his actions certainly were. I think it is important not to absolve him of responsibility by pointing out he is mentally ill.
@opalmarie: But that's not what people are saying. His actions are inhuman, but he is still a human being, and a complete buffet of mental diagnoses.
@SarahMC: A comment such as "He is evil and should rot in a hole" suggests that an individual is completely evil. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" person, only individual people. And people sometimes make deplorable or "evil" actions, and many times, the most deplorable of actions are perpetrated by individuals with a history of mental illness. That does not mean they are Satan, and vilifying someone to that point does the justice system a massive disservice.
Even individuals who commit the most heinous crimes have people who care about them, and people they care about. It's a tough pill to swallow, but the reality exists nonetheless.
@opalmarie: No one is absolving him by saying it. Even mentally ill criminals get locked up.
What admitting his illness does allow is a discourse that means we can learn from his actions. As I said above, Fritzl is an extreme case study. Anything that can be learned from him, his life and his mental state can be used to prevent things of this nature recurring.
@pandorasmittens: Just out of curiosity (and I'm not pretending like I could diagnose someone when a. I'm not a doctor and b. I've never met this man) but do you consider sociopaths to have a form of mental illness? I don't.
Antisocial personality disorder is in the DSM, and sociopathy is generally considered to be the same thing as ASPD. So yes, it is considered a mental illness by medical professionals. However, many criminals do have ASPD, and no one is saying it excuses them from criminal behavior. So just because someone might consider sociopathy to be a mental illness, and might have compassion for the person, yet not for the crimes, does not mean they don't think they shouldn't be isolated so that the community is safe. There is a big difference between punishing someone in a retributive manner, and punishing someone so as to isolate them from society to protect it.
When you are dealing with someone who has a mental illness (and I don't know what Fritzl's is), it is pretty barbaric to punish them in a retributive, throw his evil ass into a whole to rot manner, and a lot more palatable to simply isolate him from society so he can't re-offend. Don't forget, even if Fritzl was charged with these crimes at 40, he could be held indefinitely until he was deemed "rehabilitated." It's not necessarily a policy that will always be "fairer" to those with mental illness, since they can and do sometimes find themselves locked up for longer than a sane person would have been had he or she committed the same crime.
@pandorasmittens: after reading this whole thread, I must concur more so with LovelyHue in that:
"There's a biological and environmental factor that leads to how every one of us behaves, all the time. I do believe that mental illness exists. However, I also believe that incredibly ordinary people are capable of incredible cruelty."
After following this case since it emerged, I must say that I am highly disappointed in his punishment- OF COURSE, all mentally ill people aren't inherently evil, and if it could be determined (which I don't think enough time was spent on cross examination or psycho analysis of him to have possibly determined this) that he was severely mentally ill, he should definitely not be punished barbarically.
However, I am of the opinion that there are certain crimes that one could commit that one just can't simply be rehabilitated from(see clockwork orange), especially if one is found to be of sound mind, and acting only on selfish desire to indulge one's own capacity for incredible cruelty(this condition I personally do not think should be classified as a mental illness that one puts one into that "excusable" territory)- rape in general, (and of one's own daughter, none the less- AND FOR 24 YEARS NONE THE LESS) is one of them.
That being said, I cannot stomach the idea of punishing him in a manner "more palatable to simply isolate him from society so he can't re-offend" -it seems bizarre, considering palatable is nowhere in my vocabulary when I consider how his daughter must have felt all those years, now, and probably will for the rest of her life.
Although it won't ever happen, I would have no problem living in a world where offenses such as his were punished more barbarically. (and let's not split hairs here- no I'm not saying ay ole thing should get your dick chopped off- just things specifically having to do with heinous crimes on a large scale- and yes I know that's sort of relative to whom-ever deems things heinous and large scale) I think that more horrific punishment might just prove to be a deterrent to those who find themselves capable of such crimes, be they simply capable of great cruelty. And if believing that make me, therefore, cruel, or seemingly mentally ill myself, then I am perfectly OK with that.
@Shannon: Some are and some aren't. The difference is if the person chooses to ignore the norms of right and wrong or if they have a mental illness that doesn't allow them to understand those norms. As someone with a mental illness I can tell you that illnesses of this kind can severely effect ones ability to recognize and understand reality.
@Laura Enriquez: Exactly. That is why they call it a mental illness. The lack of understanding about mental illness on these message boards is frankly a bit shocking.
@save_jinger: Good lord, did you read my responses? Also, Laura Enriquez stated that some do and some don't. That's why I was asking. Don't condescend to me.
@Shannon: In my opinion (I'm not a doctor or anything, just basing this on my own experience) some sociopathical behavior is based in mental illness and some is not. I can't really speak about the "not" category because I have no idea what would motivate someone in those cases, but I do know that some sociopaths know that they are doing something wrong and don't care and others don't understand why what they're doing is wrong.
@Laura Enriquez: @Shannon: I think the trouble with this whole discussion is that the term "sociopath" is not officially used in psychology. If you think that whether "sociopaths" are the same as people who have ASPD is a matter of opinion, then I guess whether or not "sociopaths" have mental illness is a matter of opinion, too.
@save_jinger: Yes it's true that the word itself is outdated in medical literature but it is still used to discuss the same occurrence. Have you studied any of this?
@save_jinger: Then how could you say that the use of both terms is the problem with this whole discussion when that occurs regularly? It is not PC, but it does occur.
06/01/09
06/01/09
If he's a truly kind man, though, he'll steer her towwards counseling and away from a romantic relationship, at least at this stage. She's in no state of mind to be dating.
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
i know she needs outside support
if this is true the bodyguard needs to step back and allow her time to heal
before having a relationship
i hope he is giving her emotional support
06/01/09
06/01/09
In the meantime, I want the tabloids to BTFO.
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
06/01/09
/sarcasm
03/20/09
JUSTICE FAIL.
03/20/09
And I know for sure they don't sit well with some feminists on here (or so I've been forcibly informed).
03/20/09
It is really disheartening to see some of the reactions, but even though it's Jezebel, it's the internet, so I'm not exactly shocked to see the worst in people come out.
03/20/09
I just hope he gets a case of flesh-eating bacteria, his dick gets all necrotic, and anesthetics and painkillers fail to work. I hope that he gets "locked in" his own brain, never to escape the pain of the lesions and his own deranged thoughts.
03/20/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
03/20/09
I totally applaud a justice system that truly aims to rehabilitate rather than just punish (and can see how bonding with animals could lead to compassion for people), but...Jesus.
03/20/09
03/21/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
Perhaps I should just walk from these threads, but I find it honestly so very disheartening to see people veering from my definition of reasonable reactions so wildly.
03/20/09
Mentally ill people range from good to bad, just like people without mental illness.
03/20/09
No one wants to admit that there are probably some 'good' traits within Fritzl, but it's virtually undeniable in my book. No one is born evil.
03/20/09
03/20/09
@SarahMC: A comment such as "He is evil and should rot in a hole" suggests that an individual is completely evil. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" person, only individual people. And people sometimes make deplorable or "evil" actions, and many times, the most deplorable of actions are perpetrated by individuals with a history of mental illness. That does not mean they are Satan, and vilifying someone to that point does the justice system a massive disservice.
Even individuals who commit the most heinous crimes have people who care about them, and people they care about. It's a tough pill to swallow, but the reality exists nonetheless.
03/20/09
What admitting his illness does allow is a discourse that means we can learn from his actions. As I said above, Fritzl is an extreme case study. Anything that can be learned from him, his life and his mental state can be used to prevent things of this nature recurring.
03/20/09
03/20/09
Antisocial personality disorder is in the DSM, and sociopathy is generally considered to be the same thing as ASPD. So yes, it is considered a mental illness by medical professionals. However, many criminals do have ASPD, and no one is saying it excuses them from criminal behavior. So just because someone might consider sociopathy to be a mental illness, and might have compassion for the person, yet not for the crimes, does not mean they don't think they shouldn't be isolated so that the community is safe. There is a big difference between punishing someone in a retributive manner, and punishing someone so as to isolate them from society to protect it.
When you are dealing with someone who has a mental illness (and I don't know what Fritzl's is), it is pretty barbaric to punish them in a retributive, throw his evil ass into a whole to rot manner, and a lot more palatable to simply isolate him from society so he can't re-offend. Don't forget, even if Fritzl was charged with these crimes at 40, he could be held indefinitely until he was deemed "rehabilitated." It's not necessarily a policy that will always be "fairer" to those with mental illness, since they can and do sometimes find themselves locked up for longer than a sane person would have been had he or she committed the same crime.
03/20/09
"There's a biological and environmental factor that leads to how every one of us behaves, all the time. I do believe that mental illness exists. However, I also believe that incredibly ordinary people are capable of incredible cruelty."
After following this case since it emerged, I must say that I am highly disappointed in his punishment- OF COURSE, all mentally ill people aren't inherently evil, and if it could be determined (which I don't think enough time was spent on cross examination or psycho analysis of him to have possibly determined this) that he was severely mentally ill, he should definitely not be punished barbarically.
However, I am of the opinion that there are certain crimes that one could commit that one just can't simply be rehabilitated from(see clockwork orange), especially if one is found to be of sound mind, and acting only on selfish desire to indulge one's own capacity for incredible cruelty(this condition I personally do not think should be classified as a mental illness that one puts one into that "excusable" territory)- rape in general, (and of one's own daughter, none the less- AND FOR 24 YEARS NONE THE LESS) is one of them.
That being said, I cannot stomach the idea of punishing him in a manner "more palatable to simply isolate him from society so he can't re-offend" -it seems bizarre, considering palatable is nowhere in my vocabulary when I consider how his daughter must have felt all those years, now, and probably will for the rest of her life.
Although it won't ever happen, I would have no problem living in a world where offenses such as his were punished more barbarically. (and let's not split hairs here- no I'm not saying ay ole thing should get your dick chopped off- just things specifically having to do with heinous crimes on a large scale- and yes I know that's sort of relative to whom-ever deems things heinous and large scale) I think that more horrific punishment might just prove to be a deterrent to those who find themselves capable of such crimes, be they simply capable of great cruelty. And if believing that make me, therefore, cruel, or seemingly mentally ill myself, then I am perfectly OK with that.
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09