Does Twilight depict statutory rape?

[CaptainQuasar]

Does “Twilight” depict statutory rape?

http://www.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK//video/imdb/vi710344729/": So he's 108 and she's, what, 15 or 16? Is that kosher?

I haven't seen the movie or read any of the books. But it says on several web sites that

Spoiler

at the end of the third book, Eclipse, they have sex.

It's not that I object specifically to this particular series but a few years ago I started noticing how frequently science fiction and fantasy genre movies and books depict relationships that are technically statutory rape, between a teenager and someone who is decades older or more. Sometimes it's even more borderline than this with the teenager being twelve or thirteen or something.

I'm not particularly prudish but I just don't quite know what to make of it, particularly because it's usually done without even blinking, without the slightest hint that it's kinda libertine.

P.S. A http://www.slate.com/id/2205143/" about vampire movies.

 

[cristo]

I think the day we read science fiction and try to apply real life laws/morals to them is a very sad day indeed. Is there a law that says vampires cannot have sex with 16 year old girls? No.. because they don't exist!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I dunno, I think the standards that are portrayed in literature and other media have relevance. I think it's a good thing that characters who are portrayed as heroes, for example, (usually) do not behave in a cruel or wantonly murderous fashion. The closest you usually get to that is "antiheroes" like the Punisher who are all revenge-driven and a little bit kooky.

Similarly, I think it would be bad if sympathetically-depicted characters displayed and accepted racism, no matter how fictional or outré the setting was.

There are unquestionably artistic reasons which I think are totally legit to have movies or stories like A Clockwork Orange but those are adult themes. Twilight and some of the other stuff I'm talking about are marketed to children. And what I'm saying, anyways, isn't that it's outright offensive or something, just that it seems weird that these stories don't ask the basic question what's up with that? A Clockwork Orange had the protagonist as a rapist-murderer addicted to ultraviolence but it was asking how society ought to deal with that and whether it might be just as wrong to brainwash it out of him.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

I dunno, I think the standards that are portrayed in literature and other media have relevance. ... no matter how fictional or outré the setting was.

You might want to check that Bible book. Murder, rape violence, genocide, daughters sold into slavery ...

I know it's only a story but imagine if some impressionable people took it seriously - it could cause trouble.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You might want to check that Bible book. Murder, rape violence, genocide, daughters sold into slavery ...

I know it's only a story but imagine if some impressionable people took it seriously - it could cause trouble.

Oh, totally. It happens all the time - have you seen the guys who literally take up snakes, for example, and intentionally get bitten and often die? Thanks for agreeing with me mgb_phys, that's a good supporting point. It's great to have people around here who sycophantically kiss the butt of the original poster in a thread.

(Warning may contain irony)

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

ps. You probably don't want to read any Robert Heinlein

 

[CaptainQuasar]

ps. You probably don't want to read any Robert Heinlein

Why? Because I'm obviously a prudish up-tight Christian who would be freaked out by cross-gender mind transplants? (I mean, seriously, I'm talking about appreciating A Clockwork Orange and you think you're going to rock my world with Heinlein references?)

Sorry to not fulfill your stereotypes but I'm an atheist. You don't have to be a conservative Evangelical Christian or something to think that a forty or fifty or hundred-and-eight year old having sex with a teenager is sketchy, nor to think that convincing ten and eleven and twelve-year-old moviegoers that such a thing is run of the mill is sketchy too.

⚛​

 

[cristo]

... nor to think that convincing ten and eleven and twelve-year-old moviegoers that such a thing is run of the mill is sketchy too.

Erm.. the movie's rated PG-13..

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Erm.. the movie's rated PG-13..

LOL well I'm sure that no one under 13 will be going to see it, then, and it isn't being marketed towards them at all.

I know that teenagers can deal with issues of sexuality maturely and I'm not saying that they're a bunch of blind zombies who believe anything they see. I'm saying that it's weird that this topic comes up so often without the question of whether it's kosher being asked. So that's what I'm doing, asking the question.

(For all I know, since I haven't seen or read it, maybe Twilight actually does ask the question itself. I'm saying that from a pretty broad familiarity with sci-fi and fantasy stuff there isn't much of any reflection on it.)

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm saying that it's weird that this topic comes up so often without the question of whether it's kosher being asked. So that's what I'm doing, asking the question.

Your argument seems to be the moral equivalent of penny-wise, pound foolish.

In my quite humble opinion on the matter of stat rape, it seems that it needs a relatively morally-structured society in which to mean much. There's so many, many opportunities for the abuse of innocence in our world of reality that this seems more of a fine-tuning.

But in this fictional world its very premise is the existence of unholy creatures who suck the blood of, and murder, innocent victims (I think, anyway). Seems a little hair-splitting to worry about sexual innocence.

In fact, it's a variation on the same theme of Westerner' wonky sense of values. You can tear their heads off with as much gore as you want, but hint at sex and it gets slapped with an adult content rating...

 

[mgb_phys]

Why? Because I'm obviously a prudish up-tight Christian

No christians would be right behind twilight!

"So god's like infinitely old and Mary, what, 15 or 16? and definitely kosher!"

 

[Oerg]

sorry to be off topic, but what is with all this hype about this film? I mean the hype was already there before the release and voters on imdb arent really fond of it at the moment with only a 5+rating out of a 10.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

But in this fictional world its very premise is the existence of unholy creatures who suck the blood of, and murder, innocent victims (I think, anyway). Seems a little hair-splitting to worry about sexual innocence.

In fact, it's a variation on the same theme of Westerner' wonky sense of values. You can tear their heads off with as much gore as you want, but hint at sex and it gets slapped with an adult content rating...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from the trailers it looks like 108-year-old vampire character is as usual the "good guy" vampire, the one who doesn't go around murdering people. Nothing to do with penny-wise / pound-foolish at all: I'm saying that the sympathetic hero hot good guy is in essence a geriatric guy who tries to get laid by a teenager.

It just seems to me that, consciously or unconsciously, many or most of these instances aren't literary devices but are the authors working out their own sexual issues. The author of this series is a Mormon woman, btw.

No christians would be right behind twilight!

"So god's like infinitely old and Mary, what, 15 or 16? and definitely kosher!"

Oh, you're such an iconoclast. Keep up the daring exposition of all the things that I'm sure no one knows about Christianity.

The "may contain irony" thing only goes so far, man. Once every post is you tossing off one-liners that you think are all shocking and deep or whatever it gets pretty old.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

sorry to be off topic, but what is with all this hype about this film?

Yeah, seriously. As the years go by I am always more and more amazed that every few years some new phenomenon seems to top the previous one at the number of teenage girls screaming at the top of their lungs it can get together.

There was a clip on the news of a cast appearance that showed a five or six story atrium in a mall somewhere packed to the gills with girls looking down and screaming. It was like the Galactic Senate from Star Wars but filled with screaming teenage girls.

⚛​

 

[mgb_phys]

From the movie poster in that link the vampire appears the same physical age as the girl (obviously because this is just a high school teen movie with a vampire plot) so the fact that he is chronologically 108 years old is different from if he was a 40 year old looking vampire (eg David Bowie in The Hunger) who was 108 years old. That would not have got a 13 rating!

Similairly a Manga cartoon where the heroine is really an ageless god but only appears to be a 12year old girl when being raped by something with tentacles wouldn't get a 13 rating in the US even though it is legal. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn does the deed with an elf who is at least several 1000years old, he is presuambly in kindergarten from an immortal elf point of view.

The move rating boards tend to go on what appears to be happening in a movie (two teenagers) rather than taking into account immortals or presuambly frames of reference approaching 'c'.

 

[Art]

No. There is no even fictional statutory rape. Bella is 18 in the 3rd book - Eclipse; (17 in the first book and 19 in the 4th) She becomes an ageless vampire herself in the 4th book btw.

I hope that smooths your sensibilities. Don't feel too bad I'm sure you'll find something new to be outraged about soon :tongue:

 

[DaveC426913]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from the trailers it looks like 108-year-old vampire character is as usual the "good guy" vampire, the one who doesn't go around murdering people.

Yes but the institution of vampirism is that they are undead and must murder to survive. The fact that this one seems to have a heart of gold is a detail.

Imagine this scenario applied in real life.

"Honey! Our daughter is going out again with that gangsta street-racing drug-dealer!"
"Oh stop being such a fuddy-fuddy! All his friends are gangsta street-racing drug dealers, but he's not. I'm sure she won't lose her innocence to the drug culture with him around..."

 

[mgb_phys]

No. There is no even fictional statutory rape. Bella is 18 in the 3rd book - Eclipse; (17 in the first book and 19 in the 4th) She becomes an ageless vampire herself in the 4th book btw.

Do all Vampires have Transylvanian citizenship?
I think she wanted to get bitten to get an EU passport, bloody foreign vampires coming over taking our jobs, biting our women...

 

[WarPhalange]

An 18-year-old looking guy having sex with a 17-year-old? How disgusting!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I hope that smooths your sensibilities. Don't feel too bad I'm sure you'll find something new to be outraged about soon :tongue:

Well maybe there'll be a movie with gay ancient vampires getting married to teenaged boys and then we can get outraged together. :tongue:

Yes but the institution of vampirism is that they are undead and must murder to survive. The fact that this one seems to have a heart of gold is a detail.

Unless he's heroically disciplining his vampirism and avoiding killing anyone, being portrayed as the stoic principled self-sacrificer, like in all the other vampire stories.

Imagine this scenario applied in real life.

"Honey! Our daughter is going out again with that gangsta street-racing drug-dealer!"
"Oh stop being such a fuddy-fuddy! All his friends are gangsta street-racing drug dealers, but he's not. I'm sure she won't lose her innocence to the drug culture with him around..."

It has nothing to do with her losing her innocence. My point is that if it's being portrayed as though it's essentially like a girl messing around with her slightly older boyfriend that seems a bit oblique to me.

It's like the daughter losing her innocence to the gangsta kid's fifty year old crime boss uncle, it seems to me, and portraying that as supa hot because he's all dangerous and powerful. To ten-eleven-twelve year olds and sundry in the audience. But I dunno, maybe you guys would be perfectly okay with that.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

It has nothing to do with her losing her innocence.

In my opinion, that is the essentially foundation of statutory rape (though not necessarily the way we might phrase it).

We are trying to protect people who are barely older than children from adult concepts, such as sex (which is pushed upon them by older people wanting to have sex with them). Only when a teen is old enough to understand the implications of sex will we grant that they are wise enough to make that choice for themselves.

So, Twilight seems to have no problem introducing this barely-more-than-a-child to a world of undead and death (afterall, in this world of vampirism, the girl is more likely to be killed or turned undead - than raped. Remember, this film's premise is the exception to the rule.) But your concern is whether it's inappropriate to introduce this barely-more-than-a-child to normal, healty adult sexual concepts (even if not healthy for her as barely-more-than-a-child).

 

[Topher925]

I don't see what the big deal is. Life is not some Sesame Street episode where every teenager is pure and everyone makes perfectly moral decisions. Teenagers are going to have sex well before they're 18 regardless if there's movies about it. So who cares if a there's a movie where some vampire takes a teenager's "innocense" away. MTV and prime time television will do more moral damage than that movie ever will.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

In my opinion, that is the essentially foundation of statutory rape (though not necessarily the way we might phrase it).

We are trying to protect people who are barely older than children from adult concepts, such as sex (which is pushed upon them by older people wanting to have sex with them). Only when a teen is old enough to understand the implications of sex will we grant that they are wise enough to make that choice for themselves.

So, Twilight seems to have no problem introducing this barely-more-than-a-child to a world of undead and death (afterall, in this world of vampirism, the girl is more likely to be killed or turned undead - than raped. Remember, this film's premise is the exception to the rule.) But your concern is whether it's inappropriate to introduce this barely-more-than-a-child to normal, healty adult sexual concepts (even if not healthy for her as barely-more-than-a-child).

No, that's a straw man you're setting up, not any attempt to respond to what I'm saying. I have not said anything like "teenagers should not be exposed to sex."

Statutory rape is not about preventing teenagers from being exposed to concepts of sex. A sixteen year old having sex with a sixteen year old is perfectly okay (insofar as exposure to sex goes; there are all sorts of reasons like pregnancy and diseases why it's probably a bad decision anyways.) The reason why the concept of statutory rape exists is to prevent sexually predatory adults from leveraging their way into teenagers' pants in the various ways adults have available for applying pressure or obtaining undue influence over the teenagers' decision to have sex.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

Statutory rape is not about preventing teenagers from being exposed to concepts of sex. A sixteen year old having sex with a sixteen year old is perfectly okay

No it isn't.

Surprise!

The reason why the concept of statutory rape exists is to prevent sexually predatory adults from leveraging their way into teenagers' pants in the various ways adults have available for applying pressure or obtaining undue influence over the teenagers' decision to have sex.

⚛​

You are now offering you own interpretation of stat rape. And it's wrong.

"Statutory Rape Is Illegal Sexual Activity Between Two People When It Would Otherwise Be Legal If Not For Their Age: In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape*

The age of the aggressor is not a disqualifying factor for statutory rape, in fact it's not even considered. Thus, the rape law is meant to protect a minor from any aggressor, not just an adult.



* wet-noodle-thrashing for using Wiki as an authority accepted ... I'm at work. Little time. Sue me.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, okay then. Well in that case read the original question as Does “Twilight” depict as normative teenagers having sexual relationships with significantly older adults in a fashion that would not be legal?

Whatever semantics you're going to toss around about the technical meaning of "statutory rape" it's still a straw man to imply that I've said that teenagers need to be prevented from exposure to sexual concepts. Especially when I have expanded at great length on what I meant by the original question.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, okay then. Well in that case read the original question as Does “Twilight” depict as normative teenagers having sexual relationships with significantly older adults in a fashion that would not be legal?

Whatever semantics you're going to toss around about the technical meaning of "statutory rape" it's still a straw man to imply that I've said that teenagers need to be prevented from exposure to sexual concepts. Especially when I have expanded at great length on what I meant by the original question.

⚛​

Wow. I'm all "semantics" and "straw man", but you're all "expanding at great length". You're a slippery one you are.


I'm going to interpret that as you saying "OK maybe I flubbed the question and got back things I didn't expect."

No problem. Close the thread, reformulate your thoughts, ask it again when you're sure you know what question you want answered.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

And actually you seem to even be presenting an entirely biased selection of your own source. From the same page: "There are qualified circumstances in which sexual relations with a person under the age of consent are not a crime (or constitutes a less serious crime). The most common such qualifications are that both parties to the act are minors, or that the person to be charged is legally married to the minor or close in age to the minor."

But in any case, like I said, semantic arguments about the definition of "statutory rape" are immaterial; I made it entirely clear that I'm talking about an adult taking advantage of a teenager sexually and I am not and have not said anything like teenagers should not be exposed to concepts of sex.

Wow. I'm all "semantics" and "straw man", but you're all "expanding at great length". You're a slippery one you are. I'm going to interpret that as you saying "OK maybe I flubbed the question and got back things I didn't expect."

No problem. Close the thread, reformulate your thoughts, ask it again when you're sure you know what question you want answered.

Wow, I'm slippery, huh? Not only cherry picking from Wikipedia to try to demonize me into being some kind of anti-sexuality crusader but you have to pretend that I've said nothing except the single title line of the post.

Yeah, this is about as effective an argument as mgb_phys telling me to go read my Bible when I'm an atheist.

⚛​

 

[DaveC426913]

But in any case, like I said, semantic arguments about the definition of "statutory rape" are immaterial; I made it entirely clear that I'm talking about an adult taking advantage of a teenager sexually and I am not and have not said anything like teenagers should not be exposed to concepts of sex.

⚛​

Immaterial? It's in the title of the thread, as is the context: of 'Twilgiht'.

You're now asking a completely different question.

You accuse me of a straw man. In fact, you are trying to pull a bait and switch.

Take your lump, concede and reformulate your question from the top. And don't try to lay the fault at someone else's door.

 

[DaveC426913]

And actually you seem to even be presenting an entirely biased selection of your own source. From the same page: "There are qualified circumstances in which sexual relations with a person under the age of consent are not a crime (or constitutes a less serious crime). The most common such qualifications are that both parties to the act are minors, or that the person to be charged is legally married to the minor or close in age to the minor."

But in any case, like I said, semantic arguments about the definition of "statutory rape" are immaterial; I made it entirely clear that I'm talking about an adult taking advantage of a teenager sexually and I am not and have not said anything like teenagers should not be exposed to concepts of sex.



Wow, I'm slippery, huh? Not only cherry picking from Wikipedia to try to demonize me into being some kind of anti-sexuality crusader but you have to pretend that I've said nothing except the single title line of the post.

Yeah, this is about as effective an argument as mgb_phys telling me to go read my Bible when I'm an atheist.

⚛​

You blame others. I have to admit, I heard the same thing in your comments to mgb_phys but ignored it.

"..demonize me into being some kind of anti-sexuality crusader..."
And goodness you like to put words in people's mouths. It says a lot more about your thoughts than mine.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm putting words in your mouth, eh? From your very first comment in this thread:

Seems a little hair-splitting to worry about sexual innocence.

So evidently it's perfectly reasonable for you to turn a question referring to statutory rape into "worrying about sexual innocence." But even though the way I've been using the term "statutory rape" is completely in line with the Wikipedia article you yourself quoted, I need to close the thread and do some sort of soul searching, huh?

Naawww, you aren't being slippery and rhetorical and trying to avoid addressing the actual question I've posed, not at all. It's all my fault for being so terribly unclear and confusing, I practically twisted your arm and forced you to bring up this discussion of "innocence". That doesn't sound pejorative at all.

You blame others. I have to admit, I heard the same thing in your comments to mgb_phys but ignored it.

You... heard some reference to the Bible from me? I don't suppose you can actually quote anything Biblical I said, can you? Because of course you're all against putting words in anyone's mouth, I'm sure you wouldn't just offhandedly imply that I've been talking like a Christian fundamentalist to avoid dealing with what I've actually said.

⚛​

 

[Moonbear]

I'm really not sure what's going on in this thread, and I'll admit I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I may be misreading, but it seems to be heading all over the place and turning into a bunch of bickering. So, I'm going to lock it for now. When I'm a bit more rested, I'll re-read and decide if I should re-open it (or perhaps Evo will arrive before then and make a final decision on the fate of the thread).