Sex and love in Stieg Larsson's books

I have been thinking about writing an article for my Millennium fan site about, erm, sex and love in Stieg's books. No, seriously! I think it's very interesting that Stieg continually drops hints about all sorts of different sex-love-combinations and that we should accept them as long as they are not related to abuse. Mikael sleeps with every woman he meets (more or less) but doesn't really fall in love, Lisbeth sleeps with both men and women at leisure but won't allow herself to fall in love, Erika sleeps with Mikael and her husband (who also fancies men), Christer is gay in a steady relation, Miriam is lesbian/bondage/fetichist and not looking for steady relations at all, and so on.

I like the way Stieg shows how diverse sex can and should be and that that is absolutely 'normal' - except, as said, when it's abusive/non-consensual. But I'm a bit mystified why there isn't more romantic love in his books. (Dag & Mia perhaps - but they are killed.)

I wonder therefore *what exactly* Stieg wanted to show about sex and love and their relation in the books.

(Aside from the obvious: that you shouldn't be a biggot and you shouldn't hate women, of course.)

Any thoughts? You have to admit that sex, although it is seldom described explicitly, plays a rather large part in the books.

Posted by chris from sallysfriends.net i Copenhagen , 25 October 2009

"I wonder therefore *what exactly* Stieg wanted to show about sex and love and their relation in the books." I think Stieg wanted to show the world how liberated Swedes are when it comes to a person sexuality.

Posted by Gary in USA , 26 oktober 2009

Thoughts on the "entropic Chaos Factor?" Context from the book is:

"Apart from the fact that your not really a dyke. You're probably bisexual. But most of all your sexual--you like sex and you don't care about what gender. You're an entropic chaos factor."

WHAT IS AN ENTROPIC CHAOS FACTOR? Been researching for hours...

Posted by aelli12 , 27 oktober 2009

It's a homemade word of Larsson's, which has little if anything to do with sex. (See my reply in your original, topical post :-)

Posted by chris from sallysfriends.net in Copenhagen , 27 oktober 2009

Thanks very much!! Been driving me crazy trying to figure it out. :)

Posted by , 27 oktober 2009

Yeah, I actually looked it up too when I first read it! :-)

Posted by chris from sallysfriends.net in Copenhagen , 27 oktober 2009

Swedes might be librated, but I dont think it has to do with nationalty. Alot of western men wont ever accept to share their woman like Erika's husband does, and I'm sure even more persons wont appreciate a partner like Miriam; someone who isnt intrested in a steady relationship whatsoever.

Posted by Salander fanatic in salander ville , 30 oktober 2009

Yeah, it seems like Larsson is almost over-eager to tell us exactly how many different -'liberated' - relationsships are possible; except one, it seems, of really deepfelt, romantic love. (Although I guess some of the steady relationsships, like Erika's with her husband, might qualify.) Miriam, however, is sexy as hell, no doubt, but if I was a girl who was into girls I'm not sure I'd wanna date her - I'm not into 'unsteady-just-sex' relationships. But I guess it's fine that Larsson shows the possibility ... (almost) without being *too* voyeuristic :-)

Posted by chris from sallysfriends.net in Copenhagen , 30 oktober 2009

Larssons characters are very 'Swedish.' And real.

Having lived in Stockholm for six years I enjoyed the books even more! They don't call their spouses kids 'step children' but rather 'bonus barn' ' - bonus children'

Posted by Aliz in Sao Paulo , 2 december 2009

"They don't call their spouses kids 'step children' but rather 'bonus barn' ' - bonus children'" - I love that! Very "the glass is half full" way of looking at it :-)

Posted by Michelle in Amsterdam , 21 januari 2010

Larson's writing has helped me to understand my own sexuality. I was always trying force the ideal of romantic love on others and myself. But after living in multi-cultural London and getting to know some scandinavians I have come to learn how sexuality doesn't have to be so regemented. There can be a right person and a right relationship for everybody at any time. Larson's writing reflects this perfectly. The death of Dag & Mia is bleak from a hetro-romantic point of view but that may have been Stieg's own experiences. Good luck Eva!

The book Sexual Fluidity and studies on Socio-Sexuality make interesting further reading. Let your partner "set the pace" x

Posted by adphex in london , 29 januari 2010

Sex sells! And Stieg knew it. Period.

Posted by Steffe , 16 April 2010

i'm not done reading the books yet -just saw the movie yesterday and now i'm reading the second book- but i wish that lisbeth and mikael would fall in love... lol i just think they work well. i think that should be the ending to the entire series... that they fall in love... but then go their sperate ways because they cant handle being in love and they are scared of it. lol kinda tragic i guess

Posted by juicy couture girl , 22 April 2010

I read the first two books and at the beginning I was bothered by Blomkvist's affairs with every woman with a pulse. I love that Salander's sexuality is not defined. The book shows that women are allowed to be agressive and sexually free to do what they want. Yet, as we read, is not socially accepted by some e.i. officer Faste. And as Mimi told him, is not his or anyone's business who people sleep with. It also proves that monogyny is a difficult concept to achieve for some women and men no matter how evolve we think we are. Though as I'm writing this, deep inside I do wish Lisbeth and Mikael get back together and make sweet sweet love!

Posted by mags in New York , 25 May 2010

Throughout the series Larsson not once graphically shows sex. The most graphic depictions of sex appear to be the violent abusive ones. His book is not salacious nor sensational about sex. He depicts the sexual horrors as repulsively as he can with no eroticism; emphasis only on the absolute knowledge that these acts are of despicable. degenerate, repugnant, and unforgivable beings.

There is a strong theme of friendship throughout. What is it? Can a man and woman be friends with or without sex being involved? Just what makes for friendship? just what is sex to the human?

One of the compelling realities in this series is the complete individuality of each person. There are casual sexual encounters that fill the physical needs. There are the complex same sex relationships, the equally complex opposite sex ones, the intersections between the two.

And at no time (except for the abusive violent sexual acts)is there any hint of judgment. (This or that is bad or abnormal or this is particularly salacious or this is the preferred normal way).

Here non-abusive sex is as varied within each person as it is between each person. And it is shown to be a perfectly normal human drive; that each person has a variety of appetites that are all right though always with the caveat non-consensual abusive sex is absolutely wrong.

In the USA we are deeply divided about sex. . . what is right what is wrong sex is bad sex is good the feminists are pictured a man=hating beasts damned to hell, the men are pictured as grotesque sex obseesed degrading animals. The conservatives christians decry prostitution while their leaders are continually involved in sexual scandal which matters not to their sheep because they repented and were forgiven whereas anyone else in their midst would be castigated and flogged if legal. This puritan culture along with sheer ignorance seems to believe monogamy is an evolved process. Why?

At the same time we are a prurient nation. We delight in the sensational press. We live for the salacious. Just look at our TV shows. For example two and a half men depicts two bothers and a son . One brother is a insatiable sexual predator thee other a bumbling joke raising a son who is a dislikable as his father and his uncle. The entire show is one long sex and bodily function attempt at humor. And this is on primetime.

Alas i am departing my point there. Friendship is a strong theme in Larsson. Friendship and how valuable and rare it is whether or not sex is involved. Also the theme of profound belief in an individual's choice. Larsson believes deeply in individual freedoms particularly of choice.

Without giving away the end Lisbeth is offered a choice, if recognized as a competent adult Swede she must also accept the responsibilities as such. What she battles with is that by default she must become a functioning member of society. What she wants is absolute freedom. Is there a compromise?

In the progression of the series the friendship theme is subtle but important because in truth we do not individually exist in a vacuum. And gradually the horrifically abused and isolated Lisbeth begins to understand to her absolute dismay that she has been cared about and that she too has begun to care.

Wordy person am I not? but also think about these forums. Larsson has compelled us to acually think.

Larsson asks questions. What is right and what is wrong? What is just and what is legal? What is moral and what is ethical?

One last observation. Lisbeth made a choice early in her life. She was never and never considered herself a victim except of circumstances. She chose always to fight. Her will to survive and to protect (remember her mother?) defines her. She never suffers self pity, never accepts her situation. She always fights and always seems to be shocked that others also fight on her side for her, all without being asked.And all without loss of dignity.

Posted by gwynn , 2 June 2010

Thanks to Gwynn for your eloquent analysis, as well as your defense of Lisbeth. I wonder how people in the US would respond, however, if the book had been translated in its original title, "Men Who Hated Women"? And how does the fact that the series has been on the bestseller list in Scandinavia for years reflect on the different mindset? In other words, would many Americans have even picked up the book for pleasure reading if the title had been the original?

Posted by Maria in Atlanta, GA , 29 June 2010

I agree with the poster above's me (Maria) last paragraph.

You cannot solely view the subject of sexuality in Larson's books through American eyes. America's principles are Puritianistic when it comes to sexuality, even today, in 2010. One must take Sweden's view on sexuality in to consideration. The first question I'd be asking is how the word "sexuality" defined in Swedish? The result may be in and of itself a small revelation for your article.

There are several theme's in Larson's books that are directly linked with each other. If you shift your key word from "sexuality" to "relationships", the themes will make more sense.

Firstly and the most dominant theme, Larson delves into women's issues. Despite being a book written in the 21st century (or close to), it is very clear that we ( the Western world, especially Sweden) is a very patriarchal society. He made a distinction between women of weatlth, middle class and the impoverished woman, but subtly displayed that a women's issues weren't defined by socio-economic status.

Harriet Vagner illustrated that money cannot protect a woman from abuse. Money did help her escape and start a new life, but at the same cost that any survior of abuse has to pay. Living like a fugitive to hide from their offender(s). In the end, the shame and scandal, was avoided by Harriet and her family. Maybe the system would have helped her or maybe they would have committed her to an institution for her delluisions or something worse. We can't know for sure, but the latter is an implied risk.

Erika Bergers' injusties are extremely subtle. She is a woman in power who is still called a dyke, has her affairs scrutinized by the media, and is the subject of jabs a man in her position would be applauded for.

Wealth is no indicator that a woman is safe, but it DOES help a woman survive better. Money doesn't change social stigma and attitude. It merely serves as a means in which a victim can protect herself and make her escape- more money, more resources.

Lisbeth may be able to consider a middle class woman with roots in poverty, which is not uncommon. Her abuses started early, which again, is not uncommon. When she told the people who supposed to help her, she was severly let down. Her relationships are more complicated, as she most likely has Asperger's Syndrome. The way she defines relations is inherently different from a normal person. When exploring her relationships, you first must understand how a person with such extreme intelligence deals with intimate relationships.

Lisbeth's mother is an interesting character. She demonstrates the need to please her abuser. This is often the case with woman, especially those in poverty who hope to get themselves out of the ghetto by settling for a man who victimizes her. Her end is rather awful, but is more common than you'd care to know.

In order to keep this brief, Larson clearly demostrates an indepth knowledge of victimology and women's issues. The book's original title lays the theme right out on the table for you. The problem with society is that they look at abuse as a relationship problem or sexual dysfunction, blamed on the victim of that abuse. The perpetrators are often in positions of power, outwardly wonderful men, but inside they are extremely deviant and are able to rationalize their abuse partly with their own twisted logic and partly because society has given them carte blanche. If you follow the logic, the understanding you seek about Larson's view on relationships, sexual and otherwise will follow.

Larson painted a very intricate portrait of Western society as a whole, using Sweden as his canvas. Sex doesn't occupy much of that portrait.

Posted by Carrie in Milton, DE , 4 August 2010

Thank you very much Carrie, your comment on the different women in Millennium helped me put their individual roles into words.

Posted by Kristina in Bodø, Norway , 10 October 2010

I dont know much about everyday life in Sweden but I think its interesting that the book explores all kinds of sexual relationships and partnerings that give the impression that Sweden is an open progressive society, however long term partnerships (like Larssons own) are not legally recognised in Sweden - which doesn't make much sense to me. Is this just an example of contradictions and tensions in Swedish society like everywhere else? And is the sexuality themes of the books just another way of exposing these contradictions, particularly as a speculation on Lisbeth's sex life is one of the tools used to discredit her by the forces working against her?

Posted by Bridget in Galway, Ireland , 18 November 2010

I like the relationship between Mikael and Erica and Lisbeth and Mikael. Based on friendship and respect, for me it's a far better ground than love.

Love all 3 books.

Posted by Jelena in Zagreb, Croatia , 19 November 2010

Maria, in France , the title has been translated into its original meaning " les hommes qui n'aimaient pas les femmes" . It is a great success in France either . Does it show something about the French minset?

Posted by pascale in Garancieres/Yvelines , 21 November 2010

Thanks, Carrie, really enjoyed your analysis and thought that Larsson was showing pretty impressive insight into different mindsets.

Thought I'd contribute 2 things:

a) there is also the relationship between the couple in the Carribean.

b) I don't think that Larsson isn't being judgemental - at all. From the few things we hear from Berger's husband, we understand that Berger is breaking his heart and is never happier than when she leaves Millennium. Blomkvist breaks Lisbeth's heart by sleeping with Berger. But I don't know exactly what Larsson's point IS either.

Posted by Kaylie in Cambridge , 21 November 2010

one thing thats really kind of disturbing....

is it just me or dus evr1 sleep with everyone in these books?? lyk seriuously....they're all just getting into each other's pants....LYK ALL THE TIME!!! and y oh y, did they hav to show that very EXPLICICT scene between mimmi and lisbeth?? it really WASNT necessary!!! it was just WAY too mUCH!!

Posted by girl_interrupted in australia , 23 November 2010

To the poster who said: "I think Stieg wanted to show the world how liberated Swedes are when it comes to a person sexuality." What makes you think that Swedes are more libarated than anyone else? Is this some kind of stereotype? The sex parts are irrelevant to the most of the stories, just little extras, and the way they are written are part of what makes these books unique. being a mother of a child with autismI like the fact that Lisbeth most likely, has Asbergers, .

Posted by , 22 January 2011

I thought all the couplings in this book fit the term "friends with benefits". That means that you like the person, but you don't love them in a "falling in love" way. Also, that the relationship is not going to get more serious and will be put on hold when a real girlfriend/boyfriend comes along. Another way of saying it, is the hook-up.

Posted by Jackie in USA , 25 January 2011

I agree with those who think Stieg Larsson's focus was more on relationships than sex, and I think the key to these relationships is the power balance. In any relationship there needs to be a fine balance of power between the 2 partners in order to make it work. If you look at the various pairings in the books, gay,straight, married, unmarried, casual whatever, you can see this illustrated.

Balanced:

Blomkvist /Berger- balance in feelings, mutual respect and freedom to love outside

Berger/Beckman- ditto

Christer Malm/Arnold Ingvarsson: long term commitment with shared responsibilities

Salander/Wu- short term, casual focus/mutual respect and affection

Svensson/Johanssen- long term commitment with shared responsibilities, tragically cut short

etc.

Unbalanced:

Salander/Bjurman: he forces her to have sex with him and uses violence in order to achieve this. Uneven, abusive relationship

Agneta Sofia Salander/Alexander Zalachenko: he abuses her physically and verbally, she tries to please him despite his abuse. Totally dysfunctional.

Salander/Blomkvist: the central relationship- balanced in the sense that they are as someone has described- "alter egos", but also unbalanced in that she falls in love with Mikael who is unaware and continues his other romantic liaisons- with Berger, Harriet Vanger and finally Figuerola (agree this is weird).

Lisbeth walks away from Mikael because she senses an uneven shift in their relationship. Once she is in love with him she is no longer in control and when she sees him with Berger, she realises she cannot maintain the balance between them.

I think Larsson's point in the context of relationships, and therefore also of sex, is that society should understand that abuse is about lack of power and that a person's choice of sexual partner is only of interest if the relationship is unbalanced so that one person can exploit the other.

This ties into the larger issues of the state covering up crimes in order not to expose its own abuse of power and deception of the people who voted it into power. The personal is political and vice versa.

Shame we will not get the rest of the series.

Posted by Caracol in Ho Chi Minh City , 14 February 2011

Herr Larsson approaches sex and love through Swedish eyes. We are never taught that sex is a bad thing and are informed about sex and birth-control at a very young age.

Posted by Veronica in Södra Ängby , 15 February 2011

How can anyone deny the fact that sex is mentioned on almost every page of the entire series unless you don't know what "fuck" means. I wonder if Larsson actually used the word that frequently or did the editors over use it just to be "stylish"

Posted by Buckrroo in Montgomery , 24 February 2011

Some good insights here in this discussion. MTCW - sex and what it means or doesn't mean in a relationship is all about the two people involved. And it really comes down to each individual. Each of us is unique - in our country of birth, our upbringing (i.e. parents and their ideas about sex; our education; our religous exposure, etc.) Our childhood upbringing is then modified by our experiences and what they do and mean to each of us as individuals. I do not see Sweden, or any Scandanavian country as being more liberal in terms of sex. The approach is different to how it is put to the public (i.e. you and I as individuals). However, these days we all can know all we want to about sex. And can do what we want - the challenge being in finding someone of a like persuasion.

In the end, I like Stieg's approach and I tend to look at the "relationship" behind the sex. Sex is just a compliment to the relationship itself - a matter of friendship - which Steig states is "a matter of respect and trust".

Analysing the sex part in isolation is a wast of time.

Posted by Steve Renolds in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada , 12 Mars 2011

The impression I got was not that Sweden is populated exclusively by the promiscuous, who all have open relationships, but that Swedish society is liberal and open and enables the freedom of individuals. That is to say, the sexual hypocrisy that characterises the USA (and, as a Briton, I should say the UK too) is not a part of Swedish attitudes to sex. For example, a woman who has an ongoing extra-marital relationship might raise eyebrows but in itself it's not a scandal.

I must admit I felt quite uncomfortable having the sex scene between Salander and Mimmi described to me by a man until I understood that it was a depiction of personal freedom. To my mind, that's what sex represents throughout the novels and it's that personal freedom that the dark forces (Bjirman, Teleborian, Sapo, etc.) are intent on curtailing.

So I didn't read the many consensual sex scenes as being an end in themselves, or as a simple expression of friendship. I took them as expressions of the foundations of Swedish democracy and society that are under threat.

Posted by genji in Lisbethtown , 20 April 2011

Is Stieg Larsson a man or a woman, or simply a man hater ?

He certianly appears to have a feminine slant to all his writings in a way that begs the question - is he simply a frustrated woman !!

Posted by Gerda Lowenswaith in Missippippi , 13 May 2011

the bad guys(and they are all men), all refer to sexually active women as "whores'..the healthy ones are open to all kinds of sex and relationships and they are moral and good..

Posted by Vas in Washington DC , 12 September 2011

This is a possible SPOLIER to anyone who hasn't read HORNETS (so look away now if nec.) but I thought it was a great touch when Lisbeth finally goes free, and all she wants to do is have sex (understandably after months in hiding/hospital, and she asks anyone she meets if they're up for it. It's this kind of honesty that makes her so charming...and so human. And then she says, "I don't give a shit about wales," which is a terribly unfortunate attitude; but my point is that she says what she feels without ever even thinking about what convention dictates she should be saying. Maybe that's why it's almost impossible ever to dislike an autistic person...

Posted by Lulú in Ostend , 14 November 2011

I think Larsson meted out all of his own personal sexual fantasies as he wrote the Millennium Trilogy. This became more and more blatantly obvious to me the further I read.

Posted by E in VA , 12 January 2012

There is an element of every artist in their work and Larsson is no exception. The themes of sex, relationships and all their manifestations are clearly a piece of what drove him and precisely what contributed to such riveting literature. Well played Herr Larsson. We the readers applaud your gift to us.

Posted by PK in United States , 13 January 2012

There was a really important question raised: what is sex to the human? What is sex to Salander in particular?

Is this question even answerable?

Posted by Kate in PA , 24 February 2012

Hard to say since everyone thinks differently about sex...whether you're conservative or liberal. You will never get a concrete answer. I'm just a down to earth person, but in my opnion from reading the books, she enjoys sex as long as she does not attach herself with anyone in particular, can you blame her? She got over Michael, but not Mimi, and I think its because she had a relationship for a long period of time. She loved the way Mimi gave conditionally love, not sex but as a friend, to her before the shit hit the fan!

Posted by Wen , 1 Mars 2012