underage - Summer of '42 (1971) Discussion

[–] ParaGreen 18 years ago

Unfortunately, the shamefully unnatural, repressed and idiotic morality of modern times have corrupted people's impressions of this subject. Frankly I think that that is based on a huge lack of personal will and faith in ones own morality standards or thresholds. We may have some of the best standards for personal liberty in some areas, but lucky for the rest of the world, at least in the western world, there is more of an open mindedness about morality with a broader range of standards.

Lets face it clearly. In a situation like this like with Hermie and Jennifer O'Niel, the Dad would think's it's great(a majority of the times), probably wanting a piece too, and likely green with envy! The mom doesn't like it, but she is overrulled, and the young man thinks it's better than milk toast! Just think of all the miserable loneliness and insecutiy he has been spared. I wish to hell I had that chance when I was 15 years old, or 17 for that matter!

I don't twist my thinking based on what morality nincompoops think about the grey areas of physical relatonships. Let them pollute someone else's thinking.

DMJ

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ragreen259 18 years ago

Well, the "woman" was only in her early 20's (O'neill was 22 when it was made), and I'm not sure how old Hermie was supposed to be, but clearly he wasn't quite a 14 year old, more like about 17. Do they ever say how old he is? Been a while since I've seen it. Different times, today everyone is looking for someone to sue or get their names in the paper.

The thing that always bothered me was: "Look out, here comes Hermie the rape artist."

Rape ARTIST?? Damn, how the fine art of a good raping has fallen from glory.

reply

[–] BunchT 18 years ago

Hermie was 15, and Dorothy was 21, according to the novel. A mere 6 year difference. If it bothers you that much, just pretend he's 25 and she's 31. You won't scream quite so loud about that, will you?

reply

[–] QueenoftheDookie 18 years ago

Here some definitions of sexual abuse:

"Subtle abuse is defined as behaviors that may not intentionally be sexual in nature but serve to meet the parent's emotional and/or sexual needs at the expense of the child's emotional and/or developmental needs....Seductive abuse implies conscious awareness and intention of arousing or stimulating the child sexually...e.g., exhibitionistic display of nudity or sexual behavior; exposure to pornographic materials, etc.... Abuse of a child's sexuality or perversion may include behavior such as forcing a boy to female clothing, criticizing the child's rate of sexual development, threatening the child with fear of homosexuality.... Overt sexual abuse.... behaviors included are: attempted intercourse, cunnilingus, anilingus, fellatio, genital fondling, digital penetration....Sadistic sexual abuse includes maternal sexual behavior that is intended to hurt the child and may be part of a general pattern severe physical and emotional abuse"

From:
From Victims to Survivors: Women Survivors of Female Perpetrators
Juliann Mitchell, Ph.D.
Jill Morse

reply

[–] Alarming_Passion 18 years ago

What are you, the expert witness for the prosecution? This is not a legal rape case. It's simply a film.

You can't bring on legal or dictionary definitions to describe scenes that take place in a movie. The film can only stand on it's own as an art work. To make contentions about these characters, their motivations, their criminality is absurd. These things don't exist in the realm of this film. In this realm there is no law, no morals, no rule, no court; just like none of these things exist in a beach house where a 20 something woman has a fling with an underage boy next door. It can happen and does happen and no one is the wiser. Get over it.

reply

[–] lil96 18 years ago

But what we seem to be forgetting here, is that not only is this a movie, but it happened in real life. We know about it because of the book and the movie.
A lot of people smoke crack, it happens and no one is the wiser, right?

reply

[–] QueenoftheDookie 17 years ago

I'm just saying that's what the defintion is, you don't have to get all touchy about it.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GalenSteele-1 17 years ago

She did not seduce him. I WWII the boy would have been considered "Lucky". They liked each other and she was grieving and he was there. After the liason, she was gone never to be seen again. In todays society, I don't think she would go to trial. She was not a teacher or person in authority, she was a griving widow. My two cents worth. Now where is Grimes today?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] warlok1 17 years ago

Its a double standard.....

A 15 Year old girl get 'devirginized' by a guy in his 20's, she was 'raped' -- even if they both were caught up in the moment.

A 15 year old boy get 'de-virginized' -- its a rite of Passage, a back slapping 'attaboy' , 'now you are a real man'

Why do you think those males, when caught, are often unwilling to press charges? Think about it -- if you are a teen boy and a hot older woman gets with you, thats a point of pride, not something to be ashamed of. of course, our society wants to make them a 'victim' but to a teenage boy? Hey, you were hot for teacher. ;) Just like the Van Halen song.

reply

[–] rams_lakers 17 years ago

Agree with much of your post.

What I do not understand and what many have failed to get through to me is, how is a young male victim traumatized when some hot teacher goes after him?

There is a double standard, mainly because men force themselves upon their UNwilling female victims. In a boy's case, he's hot for teacher like you said and it's more of a mutual thing. So where does this hurt the boy? I don't view this as a crime at all. The kid "gets lucky."

reply

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

Times have indeed changed: Americans in particular have become so unbelievably
squeamish about anything sexual that we've lost our common sense. There is underage sex and there is underage sex. Each instance of it should be judged based on its own circumstances, the people involved, etc. It isn't enough simply to say "underaged, it's immoral, case closed."

1.) The Lord loves a working man.
2.) Don't trust whitey.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

This is a stupid issue. Consensual is consensual; and when it isn't, it isn't. Americans have become WAY too preoccupied with this subject in recent years, which I think is far more disturbing than the actual instances of rape, non-consensual stat rape, underage sex that occur (I'm sure it happens less often than you think).

You can tell a lot about a culture from its obsessions, and this is one of them.

1.) The Lord loves a working man.
2.) Don't trust whitey.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

Polanski is a dead issue -- dead, dead, dead. And other peoples' obsessions over it have effectively killed discussion on the Polanski board.

What I resent about debates like this is the way posters refuse to stay in context (i.e, Summer of '42 involves consensual sex between an intelligent male adolescent and a lonely female adult) and instead use "underage" as a gateway concept to wage a no-holds-barred crusade on rape, pedophilia, or anything else they can toss into the truck bed.

1.) The Lord loves a working man.
2.) Don't trust whitey.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nikon11 17 years ago

You can't rape the willing.

Didn't read the whole thread, but this kid was old enough, and there were no victims here.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nikon11 17 years ago

My impressions come from having been a teenage boy. I would've been intimidated at that age, but not so much that it would've stopped me.

Hermie was even less of a dork than I was - so yeah, even with projecting, I don't think that I'm off on this.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nikon11 17 years ago

I'm unconvinced. But I haven't seen this film in a million years, probably back when I was 15.

reply

[–] irishtom99 16 years ago

is it that you think this particular character ,as written,wasnt old enough for sex,or that 15 year old males shouldnt have sex?..because if its the latter,youre guilty of a moral prejudice that contradicts thousands of years of both biology and sociology..if its the former,maybe

reply

[–] Nikon11 17 years ago

Nothing happened...when, where? In the movie? In real life?

What are you talking about?

reply

[–] KatieCruise 16 years ago

This movie is based on the memoirs of screenwriter Herman Raucher. Raucher said he was 14 years old when the story took place, but Warner Brothers thought that was a little too young, so they made his character 15 for the movie.

reply

[–] thbryn 16 years ago

He was infatuated with her, but that doesn't mean he really wanted to have sex with her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a joke, right?

"He sent the rain."
"Who sent the fire?"

reply

[–] digiscript34 15 years ago

Nikon11 hit the nail square on the head. When both patners are willing and consenting it is not rape. Why can't folks get this through their thick heads?

Part of what initiates the fingerpointing by naysayers is pure jealousy, it's that simple. They ain't gettin none so they decalre the rest of the world's population should not have sex either.

reply

[–] thbryn 15 years ago

"willing and consenting it is not rape."
Yes, as long one of the two involved wasn't under-aged. Communities write into statutes what they feel that age should be. In Ma where the film is supposedly taking place it's 16.

reply

[–] rrb 15 years ago

Most 15-year-old boys should be lucky enough to be "raped" under such circumstances.

reply

[–] BartlebyScrivner 15 years ago

One must also take into account the socio-political climate. Virtually every man of fighting age was fighting, as well as a large portion of younger men who, filled with a sense of patriotic duty, lied about their ages and enlisted. Virtually an entire two generations of men were gone and dying like clockwork. Such a milieu has a tendency to age those left behind. Hermie may have been 14 (he was aged for the movie because of concerns just like those being expressed here) but in a few scant years, were the war to have continued, he'd be a man virtually overnight.

Raucher's actually provided some insight into this in the various interviews he's given. In the book, his sister's fiancee is mentioned several times-- she's sending him care packages. In real life, he was killed in Normandy on the first day of the D-Day invasion. Oscy, similarly, died ten years after the events of the film, machine-gunned to death while attending to a wounded man in the Korean war.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] irishtom99 15 years ago

lets stop quoting the law blindly..in 1859,in many states,it was legal to own black people..until recently,it was legal in texas for a cuckolded husband to kill his wife..in some bible belt states,its till illegal for gays to have consentual sex..in some counties of nevada,gambling ,pot,and prostitution are legal,in other places you go to jail..laws are not sacrosanct,and they are frequently passed in support of the moral prejudices of a slight majority..we know whats right and wrong..and we know that adolescents are old enough to decide about sex,its a biological imperative..lets give them education at the front end and help,when needed,at the back end..of course they will make mistakes,just like 40 year olds do..rules,as opposed to laws,prohibiting sex between teachers and pupils,doctors and patients,lawyers and clients etc..are designed to protect all people from being exploited in a "power" relationship and have civil consequences such as lawsuits and loss of licenses..we can extend that to teachers and pupils,parents and their children,etc..but laws saying sex between two 16 year olds is ok,and not injurious,but sex betwenn a 16 yearold and a 19 year old is terrible has nothing to do with protecting "kids" and everything to do with moral hangups..

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BehindTheBeat 13 years ago

Not going to read through the whole thread, but you do have to stop and think that a teenage boy losing his virginity to some hot older woman is almost the American Dream, while a recently widowed man in his 20s getting it on with a 15 year old girl would get you a sit-down with Chris Hansen.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chas437 11 years ago

?

Save me from the people who would save me from myself

reply