Collipso said:
I’m 17. I used to date a 18 year old. Is she abusing/raping me?
Italy has a “close in age” exemption that would apply in a case like yours. That seems reasonable to me.
Whether this is “abuse” is debatable – there are those who think that any sex between an adult and a minor is abuse, whether consensual or not, and regardless of who was the pursuer. There are those who think it is a grey area (probably most think that, including me). And, there are those who think the law should be a lot more permissive.
However, I found the movie’s dealing with this issue to be manipulative (to the viewer). By making the characters seem SO different in age, and by making the parents SO approving and hands off - while being portrayed as highly educated and enlightened, it made me wonder exactly what the movie’s message was supposed to be. The guy was a guest in the parents’ home, and was pretty rude and aggressive. And he was doing their son. It is very, very strange that they didn’t even question whether it was “ok”, or whether their son was even ok with it. Is the message that this is how parents should be? Is that really good?
Other similarly-themed stories include the parents being livid - or at the very least worrying, regardless of whether or not the story sympathizes with the protagonists.
Depends on one’s definition of “predator”. Perhaps a better term is “sexual offender”.
BTW, I never said pedophile… statutory rape is not the same thing as pedophilia.You basically implied that the people who saw the movie with you were pedophiles.
It did appear to me that quite a percentage of the people in the audience fit that stereotype, whether true or not. But I don’t think I ever said that the movie was about pedophilia.
And I looked it up, age of consent in Italy is 14, so sex offender isn’t exactly accurate.
The same behavior here would be considered an offense. Although one could certainly argue that our laws, parenting, and mores therein should be changed. The father role in the film obviously believed that it was a valuable experience.
Depends on one’s definition of “predator”. Perhaps a better term is “sexual offender”.
BTW, I never said pedophile… statutory rape is not the same thing as pedophilia.
EDIT: I agree though that the parental response that you described is extremely unrealistic if that’s how it was portrayed. I haven’t seen the movie and never will.
It makes sense in context. The two are good friends well before it gets sexual. The dad knows and likes the older guy well enough to invite him to their house for the summer so it’s not like he’s some rando old dude. And there’s no “preying,” it’s entirely consensual.
Aren’t sexual predators often trusted family members or friends? And aren’t we taught that minors cannot give consent?
Throughout the movie I thought that Oliver was a visiting scholar. He was extremely worldly and often corrected the father.
Again, I appear to hold a decidedly tiny minority opinion on this.
It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if it weren’t for the parents’ behavior being portrayed as so enlightened.
17 and 24 isn’t a big deal. I don’t see how that would appeal to pedophiles since pedophiles are known to prey on children, not young men that are legally adults in most states and countries.
In the novel they are 17 and 24. I don’t remember that being mentioned in the film, where they look 14 and 40.
I didn’t really care about the Academy Awards this year, with the one exception being Lady Bird - which I haven’t yet seen but which is steeped in my home town of Sacramento (and which of course I therefore intend to see).
But one issue I had is with regards to “Call Me by Your Name”. I saw it in the theater partly because my wife really wanted to see it, and also because we had heard that it was great. There is no doubt that it is a beautiful movie, all taking place in one of my favorite parts of the world. The cinematography, scenery, photography, and color were all amazing. And I absolutely have no problem whatsoever with gays being prominently portrayed in popular films, in whatever manner. However, by the end of the film I found myself very bothered by this particular movie, and by the next day even a bit angered by it. I’m glad that it didn’t win best picture, and so at the risk of losing my lifetime membership in the liberal club, let me explain why:
My problem has nothing to do with the two protagonists being gay, or with their activities in full display. Rather, it has to do with their ages, and the behavior of the boy’s parents. Today, Hollywood is trying to extricate itself from a longstanding culture of sexual oppression. The film portrays a relationship between a minor and an adult friend of the minor’s family. I found it utterly inconceivable that the parents, clearly knowing that this was taking place right under their roof, were totally ok with it and even encouraging it. I can’t imagine any parent behaving this way - generally parents are very protective of their children from predatory adults, as well they should be. At the end of the movie, the boy’s father told his son what I thought was a largely incomprehensible and certainly highly unrealistic “speech”, basically saying how beautiful the experience was and implying that he was jealous of it. Again, I couldn’t imagine any parent behaving in this way.
As we left the theater, I noticed that about half of the people in the small audience were rather scuzzy-looking older men, viewing the movie by themselves. I even wondered if this was some sort of soft-porn film pushing NMBLA values, and suggesting that parents should be OK and even encourage their kids to engage in sexual relationships with adults – basically to not interfere if uncle Roy wants to get off with your son. From the looks of the audience, it sure appeared to be serving that demographic. What a strange product for Hollywood to be putting on a pedestal, at this of all times while they are facing so many charges of sexual misconduct.
In reading the movie reviews on IMDB, it seems that about 90% of the reviews are wildly positive, with about 10% of respondents exactly echoing my concerns. Some of those negative reviews were even written by gay viewers. Did anyone here get the same vibe that I did? Or have I just lost my cultural sensitivity permit?
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” When you recall that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government and a preservation of state authority, the existence and meaning of each phrase makes perfect sense. You’re correct there are legal theories for all kinds of rights not explicit in the Constitution.
How would you feel if the second amendment were to be repealed?
As a fan of federalism and someone who appreciates that self-defense and hunting are legitimate activities and basic liberties, not good. States should have broader authority to restrict firearms. Let Texans have their guns but outlaw them in NYC if that’s what they want.
That idea is appealing to me, because then most of the gun owners will congregate in particular places that I can avoid. Also speeds the Darwinian process through its natural progression.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
My question is, are we sufficiently confident in our ability to vet the hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country, that we think kids would actually be safer when we allow the teachers to voluntarily carry guns into the classroom? I am not that confident. Rather, I believe that the likely outcome is that while there might be fewer mass shootings by intruders (although I am not even sure about that), it would be offset by a greater number of shooting incidents involving the teachers’ firearms.
Also, people can become crazy over time. We’ve all seen incidences of people starting out fine, and slipping gradually into mental issues. This “vetting” would have to be done constantly.
I’m a teacher and believe me, some of my colleagues should NOT be packing heat.
I shouldn’t speak for Darth, but I think that after some recent discussions he just wanted to take a break from the public boards. Plus the crowds were becoming too unruly.
I’m intrigued by this case of the Texas high school transgender kid winning the girls’ wrestling title. Ordinarily, we hear of boys becoming girls and then [unfairly] winning the girls’ division. But in this case, a girl became a boy and wants to wrestle in the boys division, but is forced to wrestle in the girls’ division. It sure seems unfair for someone being allowed to bulk up on the associated hormones, and then competing against girls.
The typical Yahoo comments are 90% from people complaining about liberals. But in this case, it seems that it was the conservatives forcing people to compete in their “birth” gender, that is the cause of this particular conundrum.
I’m not sure what I think is the right solution. It seems to me like it would be doping even if he is allowed to compete against boys. But not allowing transgender kids to compete in sports at all seems discriminatory.
[In the interest of maintaining the historical record, Warbler has authorized this post.]
Darth and I played a second game in a private group. Warb served as referee and did a superb job of keeping us in line. This time Darth was white, and the game went as follows:
Darth-Puggo
1.d4 Nf6
2.e3 d5
3.c4 e6
4.Nf3 Be7
5.Bd3 0-0
6.0-0 b6
7.Nc3 dxc4
8.Bxc4 Bb7
9.Qc2 c5
10.dxc5 Bxc5
11.Rd1 Qc7
12.e4 Bxf2+
13.Kxf2 Qxc4
14.Rd4 Qc5
15.Be3 Ng4+
16.Ke2 Nxe3
17.Kxe3 e5
18.Nxe5 Qxe5
19.Rf1 Nc6
20.Rc4 Qg5+
0-1
Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.
Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?
That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.
Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?
We’d want to know the reason for offering the benefits. I wager it was merely a way of marketing and drawing in business. There may be an argument that they’re just getting away from political organizations altogether, and not necessarily because of a disagreement with what the NRA stands for.
Yes, that makes more sense to me than your previous assertion that they are “staking out positions aligned with liberal politics”.
Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.
Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?
That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.
Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?
Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.
Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?
So Delta is “attacking” conservatives by not giving discounts to NRA members? That sounds like something that would be said as a joke on a Saturday Night Live skit.
Some people only want to ban certain guns or restrict guns a bit more.
But, because SOME people want to ban ALL guns, we therefore shouldn’t ban any guns or further regulate gun ownership at all?
I think the biggest problem with the whole “arm the school” idea, is the sheer numbers involved. Sure it sounds great to have a highly-trained SWAT team in every school, fully vetted psychologically, with angelic mindsets ready to protect the kids. But we can barely staff our regular police forces, let alone ensure that all of them are psychological saints. There are approximately 140,000 schools in the U.S. Are we seriously going to find, train, and pay 800,000 armed guards permanently stationed in these schools?
Furthermore, if we are wrong about only .01% of those, such that 1 out of every 10,000 of these supposed new hires ends up having a psychological issue, that’s 80 potential NEW school shootings because of the introduction of guns into the schools.
Worse, the thought of simply giving such weaponry to volunteer teachers is considerably more scary, and I’m a teacher! If I had to teach in such an environment, I’d quit.
Warb, I know you’re disappointed with how the game went, but FWIW I worked pretty hard - it was a well-fought game with some tense twists and turns. My only regret was that we didn’t flip for color, because it wasn’t exactly fair that I grabbed the white pieces. I had assumed that we’d be playing a second game if I won.
I was about to play Qg3.
It’s true that your attacking chances appear to have dissipated, and you’re just left with the piece deficit. You’ve also lost the d-file and your development advantage.
There were some very interesting tactics that almost happened. I wrote down some notes as we were playing, which I can post tomorrow. Right now I have to run to teach class.
I hope that you will consider playing me another game, this time with you as white. You got off to a rough start very early with 3…nxe4, and did a fantastic job of making a good game of it after that. I’d like to see how it would go with you moving first. I never felt fully in control until just a couple of moves ago.
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nf6
3.Nxe5 Nxe4
4.Qe2 d5
5.d3 Bd6
6.Nf3 0-0
7.dxe4 dxe4
8.Ng5 Bf5
9.Nc3 Nc6
10.Be3 Nd4
11.Bxd4 Qxg5
12.Be3 Qf6
13.0-0-0 Rad8
14.Qc4 Be5
15.Be2 Bxc3
16.Qxc3 Qe6
17.Bc4 Qg6
18.Qe5
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nf6
3.Nxe5 Nxe4
4.Qe2 d5
5.d3 Bd6
6.Nf3 0-0
7.dxe4 dxe4
8.Ng5 Bf5
9.Nc3 Nc6
10.Be3 Nd4
11.Bxd4 Qxg5
12.Be3 Qf6
13.0-0-0 Rad8
14.Qc4 Be5
15.Be2 Bxc3
16.Qxc3 Qe6
17.Bc4