Did Stavrogin rape the little girl? In his confession he alludes

I don't have the book with me right now but I remember it being very clear that he did have his way with her.

I just finished The Idiot this week. Not my favorite of his. I feel like I missed a lot of the themes because I'm not a 19th century russian, but I didn't feel that as strongly when I read C&P or BK. There were places where he seemed to skip ahead in the plot because he was too lazy to write it. It was a really good soap opera but didnt really strike me the way his other novels do.
I understand what he was trying to do with the prince but he didn't really seem to have any sort or drive or purpose. I remember being confused as to why he even showed up in Petersburg in the first place. He said he came to see Mrs. Yepanchin on business, but gets so caught up in the plot the reason sort of disappears?
I liked it overall but it just wasn't as tight of a story as I expected.

>>9327308
>Did Stavrogin rape the little girl?
No, he didn't. You have to understand that the 19th century was infamous for its utter prudery in Europe. You need to understand the whole context: the girl was brutally abused every now and then, so, she didn't have any feel of self-worth whatsoever. Considering anything sexual related is unthinkable and therefore demonized - especially in such a brutal and freedom-robbing family she lives in - it had quite an impact on the girl, feeling like a worthless whore she actually isn't, but Stavrogin assaulted her with what is usually associated with affection, while it wasn't intended as such; just something out of spite because he can.

Dostoyevsky is very prudish in his works, since he only implicates sexual matters, but you usually get the picture. Since Dostoyevsky didn't implicate anything more to the kiss, it stands by its own.

If you've read The Idiot, then it is also implicated that Nastassja grew up as a well educated sex slave for summer holidays.

>>9327725
>I understand what he was trying to do with the prince but he didn't really seem to have any sort or drive or purpose
Yeah, he hadn't a particular drive. Myshkin is nothing but good natured man through and through, and doesn't have any agendas. In case you didn't catch it: Myshkin symbolizes Jesus Christ, Rogoshin symbolizes Lucifer, and Nastassja symbolizes humanity, torn between salvation and self-loathing longing for self-destruction.

>>9327308
Why is Shatov so based?

>>9329410
Because he's a cuckold in the most literal sense.

Don't let this thread die. I invested so much blood and sweat into this big ass paragraph.

>>9327308

I won't die on the hill of saying that it's absolutely certain he raped her since it's not explicit in the text. However, it's so strongly implied that arguing otherwise is just an exercise in literary contortion.

Ultimately, though, whether he raped the girl or not doesn't really change the thematic content of that chapter. Even if he didn't rape her, he still pushed her to suicide (and didn't stop her) while committing a lot of other terrible things that he felt "compelled" to do and now feels compelled to confess. The one heinous act of raping the girl doesn't pivot the whole story because he still did a whole lot of other heinous things.

Still, it's pretty dang clear he raped her.

>>9329410

I had to put the book down for a while after they killed Shatov.

Seriously, following up the "miracle of birth" chapter with him getting murdered was too messed up.