(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	sorchar 2011-02-03 10:04 pm UTC (link)
	I think it's the tone of the discussion that makes the difference to me personally. I thought about it long and hard for that very reason. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snacky 2011-02-03 10:30 pm UTC (link)
	Right, I see what you mean, but then I also wonder, if I had overheard the discussion, would the actual tone sound different than what I'm reading into it? Like I said, I'm just trying to work out what I think about it - certainly not saying you were wrong to post it. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sorchar
2011-02-03 11:15 pm UTC (link)

No, I totally get you. I had the same thoughts after posting. I think it's some hard-to-explain difference - the same way one fic with a fifteen-year-old and an adult might be skeevy, while another one won't. It's hard to pin down, for me at least, but it does give me the creeps. Maybe it's the whole "heh heh she was promiscuous and came onto him" when she was TWELVE. As if her being promiscuous that young (and I do know that it happens) meant that she was somehow able to make responsible adult decisions about sex and thus it would be okay for Indy to take her up on it instead of saying "No." (To quote Hailey in "Hard Candy", "Just because a girl can imitate a woman doesn't mean she's ready to do what a woman does.")

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sorchar
2011-02-03 11:17 pm UTC (link)

Oops, hit "post" too soon. Anyway, I think especially given that the thing with Roman Polanski had been all over the news in the 70s and has been again recently, putting forth the idea that an adolescent girl is able to consent to and even pursue sex with an adult in a mature, responsible way, and thus it's okay for him to do it (or you know, RAPE her in Polanski's case) is what really skeeves me. Maybe. I'm still working it out myself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

snarkhunter
2011-02-03 11:54 pm UTC (link)

the idea that an adolescent girl is able to consent to and even pursue sex with an adult in a mature, responsible way

I don't believe this should ever be used as a foundation for policy or anything, but depending on how you define "adolescent," that can be true.

Do I think a 12-year-old can do this? No. But 16? 17? That's an adolescent. (Of course, technically so is an 18-year-old.) And I think it's insulting to the intelligence of older teens to assume that every single one who consented to sex with an 18, 19, 20, even 21-year-old (or maybe even older) has been abused, raped, whatever. I know there are Romeo & Juliet laws for this exact reason, but not all states have them, and the notion of a bright line between 17 and 18 is positively absurd.

Even 17 and 20...still not a problem for me if everyone's consenting. (I speak from the perspective of being the child of a couple who married at those exact ages.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sorchar
2011-02-04 12:12 am UTC (link)

Perhaps I should have been clearer that I mean younger adolescents, but I thought that was implied by the context of the post. No one, as far as I can see, has said anything about older teens, or sex between someone who's just under the age of consent and someone who's just over it.

And there's a huge difference, IMHO, between a fifteen-year-old having sex with, say, an eighteen-year-old, and having sex with someone who's in their thirties.

In the context of this discussion, we're not talking about older adolescents - Lucas found that uninteresting. We're talking about a twelve-year-old. We're not talking about teenagers on the verge of adulthood - we're talking about a character barely out of childhood. There's a big difference.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	snarkhunter 2011-02-04 02:50 am UTC (link)
	Oh, I know what you meant, but I was just thinking out loud about something else that bothered me. And I agree completely that there's a HUGE difference between two teens (even one over 18) and someone who is in their 30s. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sorchar 2011-02-04 04:00 am UTC (link)
	Gotcha, and I get where you're coming from. When you read about some seventeen-year-old boy being prosecuted for having sex with his sixteen-year-old girlfriend, it's ridiculous. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

silrana
2011-02-04 04:35 pm UTC (link)

Back when I was in college, I was pleasantly surprised to find out in a law class that my home state had a provision that statutory rape had to involve at least a two year difference in ages between the participants, to prevent just that sort of thing. I wish more states had it. Of course, since I haven't lived there in twenty-five years, it may have changed, but I hope not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	snacky 2011-02-04 01:36 am UTC (link)
	Yes, it's the Polanski thing that I keep associating with this, especially with the "she pursued him" bit. And describing a twelve year old as "promiscuous!" And then I'm very glad they didn't make this an overt plot point in the film. Sigh. (Reply to this)(Parent)

kelmendi
2011-02-04 02:23 pm UTC (link)

I think I may be the only one, but reading it, I thought Spielberg was disagreeing with Lucas.

First there was the "She'd better be over 22" line, which I interpreted as arguing with Lucas - "She had an affair with Indy 10 years ago? She'd better be over 22 then." I thought the "She came on to him" line was sarcasm - "Right, yeah, sure they had a consensual relationship when she was 12. In fact, she came on to him! Are you nuts?"

Then I read the comments here, and no one else read it that way. Tone is a tricky bastard.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jaseroque 2011-02-04 02:30 pm UTC (link)
	Hm. I hadn't considered that myself, but Lucas does immediately boot the age up three years after the 'promiscuous' comment. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	silrana 2011-02-04 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm. I wouldn't discount the possibility. I know I've said things plenty of times that if you removed the eye roll or the sarcastic tone and quoted just my words, I'd sound like a complete monster. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -