I spoke with my psychiatrist yesterday. She asked what I was working on and I said I was going to write another book. I told her it was about Richard Ramirez. She asked about him and asked me why I want to write this book. I briefly explained, and while I explained, I remembered that 3 years ago I wrote the following blog post while considering writing a book about Richard Ramirez
In an intellectual relationship you're attracted to someone who's bigger and smarter than you—a subject matter or a person that's interesting to you is a subject or a person that's more complex than you
Maybe sexually this is the case, too—you're always attracted to someone who is more complex than you (sexually)—so my GF is more complex than me sexually. And I am of interest to her, too, so I'm (in different ways) more complex than her sexually
Doesn't that have to be the case? Because if someone was less complex then how would they be interesting to you? That's what's interesting to me about my GF—her complexity (or her relative maturity) sexually. She shows me places in her that complete my learning. If she was simple (a high school version of herself) I wouldn't be nearly as attracted because she would be simpler than me—what would there be for me to get?—what would there be for me to learn? I'm comfortable in a position of less power when I'm getting back more knowledge
Don't we consider it natural for a young student to crush on their teacher, but (slightly more) unnatural for a teacher to crush on their young student? It is understood why a 20-something teacher would be sexually attractive to a child—not so understood why a young child would be sexually attractive to its teacher
But here's a question—Richard Ramirez. A killer who rapes 9 year olds as well as 83 year olds. He chooses them because they're vulnerable to him. But unlike many killers Ramirez does not have a type. He's happy to rape a 9-year-old girl. An 83-year-old grandmother. He's equal opportunity. He's probably not thinking in terms of the 9 year old being less complex than him sexually or the 83 year old being more (or degeneratively less) complex. He probably sees them primarily as viable victims
When raping the 9 year old, does he see himself as the father of the child, guiding her through his take? Or as the child's equal-age friend? Or simply as The Night Stalker, traveling around with his toolbox of mischief, visiting the homes of the doctor's patients—not caring what sort of knowledge he might gain from them? I tend to believe there's a way he sees himself as a little, little kid sexually. Doesn't he also see himself as psychologically older than both the child and the grandmother given the ways he manipulates them?
Ramirez puts himself in a position of having more power where he's getting back less knowledge. If (in the example with my GF above) I was enjoying my current self being with a high school version of her, that would be a (slight) perversion with me enjoying more power while getting back less knowledge
Does Ramirez view the child he rapes as more complex than him, sexually? Does he view her as something humbling—something somehow more powerful than him? Maybe there's a lack of this sort of comparison—maybe Ramirez doesn't think of the child or the grandmother as lower or higher than him—(I think he doesn't!)—and it's this sort of egalitarian raping which Ramirez does which makes him fascinating (and confusing)
Maybe killers don't follow this fuck-what-is-more-complex rule. I hardly ever try to learn from someone who is less complex than me—whose Venn diagram circles are within my own. Is part of what is sick about child molesters and Ramirez-style killers that they are trying to get something for themselves from someone who has fundamentally less than them? Like the con artist equivalent of a $100k swindler stealing $1 from an old man—it's twisted (unnecessary)—without much gain for the taking side with a lot of loss from the losing side
I'm told that humor in drama is fundamentally about the powerful losing their power—that element is present in all humorous situations. It's funny to see a king take a spill from his horse and fall in the mud—not so funny to see a baby dropped in the mud and get trampled by a horse. When someone who has power loses it, we laugh—when someone without power is further stripped of it, we don't. This is why Sacha Baron Cohen comedy is funny (at first)—to see haughty bureaucrats knocked off their pedestals by Ali G (is funny)—to see Ali G further mess with people who are less powerful than Cohen (isn't funny)—We feel sorry for them that are messed with by someone more powerful
Ramirez blazes ahead despite this—his signals are twisted in such wonderful ways! There is nothing funny about raping a 9-year-old girl. There is (in a slightly different way) nothing funny about raping an 83-year-old grandmother
Does something here speak to the mystery of child sex abusers—that they consider a child to be interesting (sexually)—or more complex than them sexually? Don't child abusers consider themselves to be a child right alongside their victims? Don't they see themselves as less complex than healthy adults? Aren't they less complex? Isn't it the case that deficient/insane people are missing a color from their crayon box and overabundant/brilliant people have an extra one? Isn't what is sick about a child abuser not only that they exercise their power over someone smaller than them—but also that the abuser considers themself smaller than their victim?
I think (in the end) that's what's fascinating about Ramirez—he is acting like he is both bigger and smaller than his victims—and that freaks me out
That's it! That's one thing I find interesting about Richard Ramirez—this will likely be a theme of my book. I have my next psychiatrist appointment in 3 months and I plan to finish my 1st draft by then