An anonymous commenter (sorry! If you identify yourself in the comments, I will thank you!) posted a link to this article and I finally sat down and read it. It not only gives an extremely similar story to Hrithik-Kangana, only not between celebrities so it is easier to be objective, it also gives information on stalking behavior from psychiatrists and police experts.
Here is the link, I highly highly HIGHLY encourage you to read it. An extremely well done article:
And here are a couple of quotes to think about:
It is not unusual for the police to be cautious when there is a potential female stalker involved, said Dr. Rajat Mitra, a criminal psychologist.
“Police are usually shy of pressing charges in cases where there are women stalkers,” he told HuffPost India. “Living in a patriarchal society we don’t believe a woman can be a stalker. The police and judiciary trivialise it and you come across a strong bias in these cases.” It was also a common assumption, he said, that the woman would have a male accomplice in such cases–how would she do it alone?
“In these cases, a woman usually wouldn’t say she was at fault,” said Anuja Kapur, another criminal psychologist. “She would go into a blame game. In her mind she would picture the man as hers, and that she would have kids with that man.”
“Usually, women stalkers are very aggrieved, and they have an inner rage they are unable to cope with,” said Dr Mitra. “They would usually miss subtle cues (that the other person is not interested) and it reveals a lack of sensitivity.”
“Cyberstalking is not an offence under the IT Act,” cyber crime expert and lawyer Pavan Duggal said to HuffPost India. Section 67 of the IT Act says a person sending obscene messages electronically could get at most three years in jail and may have to cough up a fine of at most ₹5 lakhs.
Men who stalk women in person or on the internet can be charged under section 354D of the IPC–but the same law does not apply if the victim is a man.
And the victim’s account of his issue with dealing with this:
“I think some of them believed the shit,” he said. “The general assumption is this must be someone he has really messed around with, and that is why they keep doing this, right?”
The big take away is that a stalker is absolutely completely delusional. They are capable of literally crazy extremes of behavior, and are so sure within themselves that they are never doubted no matter how blatant they are. The woman described here lied about things like having spoke to Salman Khan, having a cousin brother who was a police officer, very detailed specific lies that were shocking easy to uncover. But then, why would you investigate? Who would lie with such detail, she must be telling the truth! And it worked, she is still employed despite her victim having warned everyone he works with and her behavior having affected multiple people besides herself.
Really, read the article! It is the kind of thing I keep waiting for someone to write about Hrithik and Kangana, actually treating it like the dangerous behavior it is and digging into the criminal pathology.
UPDATE: I kept reading about stalking, because learning is fun! And here are two more things to consider. The Victims of Crime advocacy group posted some statistics, and here is one that leaped out at me, only 39% of female stalking victims have never had an intimate relationship with their stalker, but 56% of male stalking victims have had no relationship with their victims at all.
And a recent research study broke stalking down into four categories, intimate partner, acquaintance, private stranger, and public figure. In 3 of the categories, the majority of the victims were female. But in the acquaintance category, the victims were over-whelmingly male. A female stalker is, statistically, more like to have NOT had a romantic relationship with her victim than to have had one. Here is a description of this type:
approximately one out of three will assault their object of pursuit or damage property. If they threaten, they do so repeatedly, and their pursuit patterns are likely to be indirect, sporadic, but relentless, enduring on average for almost 2 years. A less intense bond with the victim may mitigate violence risk in this group, but their desire to initiate a relationship, rather than just react to rejection, is ravenous.