Kate Winslet Offended That ‘Statutory Rape’ Is Used To Describe, Uhm, Well, Statutory Rape
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, January 5th, 2009
Hollywood Values when it comes to a 36 year-old woman having sex with a 15 year-old boy:
I’m so sorry, “statutory rape”? I’ve got to tell you, I’m so offended by that. No, I really am. I genuinely am. To me, that is absolutely not this story at all. That boy knows exactly what he’s doing. For a start, Hanna Schmitz thinks that he’s seventeen, not fifteen, you know? She’s not doing anything wrong.
That offends her. A script that gets her naked with a 17 year-old actor, not so much.
At first the whole story about her character having sex with a young boy confused me. Isn’t Leo like 19 now?
Filed in General |
Kiton 25 Dec 2008 at 2:50 pm 1So is Leo the 15 year-old boy?
Jack Marinoon 25 Dec 2008 at 3:09 pm 2These liberals will do away with the age of consent like they have in Denmark. The Mambla people of Denmark stated that even babies have to be in touch with their sexuality. This is the level where demons dwell. Make no mistake this is where they are going if we sit back and do nothing because of being call a racist, homophobe, bigot, or whatever name they come up with. These people are animals and the proof is in the pudding.
As far as this film actress Kate, she just wants to nail some underage teenager just to relive her high school experience in the back of some car probably. They have this law to protect kids, even if these kids are sexually active.
“If God does not exist, everything is permissible.” - Dostoyevsky
In the next two years, these mad dogs will push and push the envelope as far as they can. They feel they are in power forever now and the Divine Tiberius Drusus Nero Obamus Caesar is Emperor for life
Janemarieon 25 Dec 2008 at 3:23 pm 3Hmmm, I wonder how she would feel about a 36 yo man screwing a 15 yo girl? Let’s hope she would acknowledge some 15 yo girls know exactly what they are doing too. In America I suspect the 36 yo man is much more likely to go to prison than when the situation is reversed and a 36 yo woman is the seducer.
Stephanieon 25 Dec 2008 at 3:41 pm 4She is trying to justify the movie, thats all. What a stupid thing to say. Oh wait she is an actress….
Death Metal Cookie Monsteron 25 Dec 2008 at 3:46 pm 5Actually I would have to agree with her (and I”m a conservative who thinks sex ed should stop being taught in a way that makes kids feel like losers if they are not having sex).
Whenever the word “rape” is in any type of phrase, people ignore any other word in the phrase just think of a person as a rapist. Yet how many people do you know that are in the early 20s that has consentual sex with a 15 or 16-year-old? I’m not saying that it should be made legal. What I am saying is that it should be called something else.
Mareon 25 Dec 2008 at 4:06 pm 6Who gives a crap if she is offended? Truth hurts, twit!
Ginaon 25 Dec 2008 at 4:07 pm 7I hate statutory rape in movies and books (and sorry, Kate, that’s what it is), but I’m confused now, because I thought from reading the reviews that the film does treat it as a bad thing. If it does and Kate didn’t get it, then let’s just say I don’t think Hollywood people should be lecturing the rest of us about intelligence and sophistication.
Jack Marinoon 25 Dec 2008 at 4:49 pm 8Hollywood has no values they are like dogs in heat and all of them have no panache in their lives. Just overgrown high school kids drinking and screwing for the first time. Now they have millions behind them and because of their success they all feel that have something important to say on all aspects of our culture. When in reality they are all clueless in their lives and if wasn’t for all their legal handlers they would be out on the street panhandling.
Aitch748on 25 Dec 2008 at 5:24 pm 9Oh shut up, Winslet.
Precious damn few of the members of your pampered, decadent tribe give a damn if the rest of us are “offended” by anything they barf up. I’m not going to start giving a damn if you throw a little snit about somebody calling the statutory rape committed by your character “statutory rape.”
Mr Sideouson 25 Dec 2008 at 5:25 pm 10I used to enjoy Winslet’s performances early on in her career. Then she opened her mouth and proved she’s another clueless celebutard. Her AmEx commercial was masturbatory.
Carolynon 25 Dec 2008 at 5:27 pm 11“That boy knows exactly what he’s doing.”
Thank you, Kate. Now you have explained to all of us morons why you and your fellow actors gave the Oscar to Polanski. Because that drugged teenaged girl knew exactly what SHE was doing when he raped her.
tom aricoon 25 Dec 2008 at 5:31 pm 12Who comes up with these ideas for movies that I have no desire to see?
Kiton 25 Dec 2008 at 5:33 pm 13Carolyn,
Now, I think it should, because she is 36 years old, qualify as statuatory rape, or some sex crime.
But here, it is implied that the act is consentual, or the boy isn’t being drugged. That is what she is saying.
Now is it wrong?
Heck yes. (Christmas, no cussing)
whiskeyon 25 Dec 2008 at 5:35 pm 14First of all, courting “controversy” is nothing new for Winslet. She played one of the murderers/lebsians in the Peter Jackson movie “Heavenly Creatures” IIRC, which Dalrymple blasted (the two girls killed the mother of one for tawdry, trivial reasons of the mother objecting to the one girl living with the other).
“Controversy” is something Winslet covets like another Oscar.
Second, Hollywood and society have a huge problem with teen age sex. Hollywood and liberals are OK with either traditional cultures marrying girls off before puberty (to much older men, say in their fifties) or the “Big Man” who has sex with teen age girls. Take for example Vampire movies and TV shows, often featuring teen age girls having sex with much older guys (who look “young.”) As one guy on another forum observed, in the book particularly the “Twilight” character Edward Cullen does the whole pickup artist thing on the girl Bella, including negs, cocky-humor, etc. while the girl finds the attention from the “beta” nerdy guys her own age tiresome and wishes they’d ignore her instead.
A lot of what we see in Hollywood and Liberal culture is catering to female and “Big Man” fantasies of the Big Man + teen girl. There I’ve just described most of the Vampire/Werewolf girl oriented movies, and a lot more, including lots of “arty” Hollywood treatments like “Ghost World” etc.
Teens are capable of having sex and giving birth, but lack judgment and experience to make informed, sensible decisions. There are good solid social reasons behind the age of consent not the least of which is a social expectation of teen agers being able to experiment with love and relationships without making disastrous mistakes, and also forcing teen girls to spend time with their age peers instead of what they’d like to do, which is hang out with older guys (and have sex with them). Even if said male teen peers are shy, inexperienced, clueless, etc. with girls/women.
This film absent the Holocaust cheap “shock” elements is nothing news, “James at 15″ with the actress from Charlies Angels did that in the 1970’s on TV no less. What’s interesting is the habit of many young women looking for younger guys they can dominate instead of equal partners. Too bad the film failed to examine the flaws of the female character in making a choice of a boy instead of a man.
USS Benon 25 Dec 2008 at 5:45 pm 15Death Metal Cookie Monster-
I understand what your saying, but in a sense rape still applies, because teenagers under the age of consent aren’t mentally equipped or mature enough to have that kind of relationship with adults.
Many teenagers are easily influenced, coerced and manipulated, and some adults are more concerned about their own narcissism than the psychological effects having sex with children will have on those children.
And that’s what Winslet really objects to, someone telling her she can’t have promiscuous sex with teenagers without legal consequences. It’s all about her, or the predators she empathises with.
Where is her concern for the teenagers that suffer anywhere from mild to severe psychological problems because some selfish adult couldn’t control their barbaric urges?
Just because a boy or girl looks like they might be 17 doesn’t mean they are mature enough to have sex (and especially sex with adults) and all it’s implications on their still developing minds.
Statuatory rape is still a form of rape, even if it is to a lesser degree just like third degree assault is still a form of assault.
Carolynon 25 Dec 2008 at 5:50 pm 16Yeah, Kit, I get you.
I’m just pissed that Kate’s playing word games. Doing something she knows is immoral - but screaming her tiny little head off that we’re not supposed to call it that.
John in Dublin Californiaon 25 Dec 2008 at 6:32 pm 17I’m gonna get myself in trouble here, but here it goes anyway. I don’t know the context in which Winslet made the comment, but I do have a vivid memory of reading that book about six years ago when it first came out. It was a stunning piece of work for a small novel. And yes, there is sex between a teen boy and an older woman, but as I recall the book, it was well handled. It was not salacious, it was quite reverental and described a young boy’s first sexual experience with a great degree of understanding and kindness. Personally, my first sexual experience as a teen was with a much older person, much to my benifit, as I was treated with great care and consideration. I would only suggest that you read “The Reader” before you judge the story. It is a very moving novel.
Steve W.on 25 Dec 2008 at 6:36 pm 18A couple of comments:
First, statutory rape is a strict liability crime in most jurisdictions. The fact that a defendant thinks a 15-year old is 17, 18, 19, etc. is irrelevant. Sorry, Kate, but that won’t fly. And neither will your indignation.
Second, prosecutors have considerable discretion in which cases they choose to prosecute. A 36-year old man who has sex with a 15-year old girl? I don’t see why anybody would have a problem with a DA choosing to prosecute in that case. A 19-year old having consensual sex with a 17-year old? I doubt that most DAs would choose to prosecute, which is probably the right decision.
Personally, the situation in the movie feels closer to the first case for me, but I’m not so sure some prosecutor in, say, San Francisco would see it the same way.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 25 Dec 2008 at 6:41 pm 19Janemarie hit it on the head.
Make it a 36 year old man and the situation looks different. The idea that every 15 year old boy wants to have sex with their hot teacher is why people think like Winslet. It’s always the older woman - young boy acts that people seem to want to let slide.
But why do we have an age of consent? Should we allow anyone at any age engage in sex or is it just the cutoff age we are arguing about? Do we want to end up like Saudi Arabia where 8 year old girls are married to old men?
I want young kids to handle a hunting rifle but they are going to have to learn how to handle one and the damage they can do before they get sent out in field hunting pheasants and deer. Somehow I don’t think the adult men and women in Winslet’s position are taking the time to make sure the kids have a thorough understanding of how sex at a young age can screw you up when you are an adult. I don’t care how much a 15 year old wants it, it can still be dangerous.
There are a lot of people sitting in jail just for looking at kiddie porn. Should we let them off the hook for actually engaging in sex with kids instead of just looking at pictures?
Kiton 25 Dec 2008 at 7:07 pm 20Steve W.,
Interesting legal analysis.
Kiton 25 Dec 2008 at 7:11 pm 21Dirty Harry,
I see you also gave us a photo of the 15 year old character.
USS Benon 25 Dec 2008 at 7:15 pm 22John in Dublin-
Hey, I’m glad it worked out okay for you. However, that’s not how it turns out for most teenagers this happens to.
I’m not sayin’ that love (with sex) is impossible between a teenager and adult, but a responsible adult would wait until the teenage boy or girl matures without risking concious or unconcious influence over the child.
An adult has no way of knowing what effect a sexual relationship, however sensitive and unsalacious, will have on a teenager and shouldn’t risk the teenagers mental health to find out.
One may make an argument that this effects boys less than girls (if at all) but in the end there’s no way to know the future and there should be boundaries regardless.
For example, some teenagers can drink booze responsibly, but that doesn’t mean we should simply lower the drinking age.
I believe there’s good reason to keep prosecuting adults who can’t control their urges no matter how well “intentioned” or how sensitive they think they are to the child’s needs.
The truth is, a teenager does not need sex with adults to be healthy,
love or no love.
And I bet any honest studies would prove that self evident truth.
J.B.on 25 Dec 2008 at 7:27 pm 23Gina, You’re not confused, the film is. The READER does acknowledge the damage done by the relationship late in the picture, but not in particularly strong terms. Basically, the first half of the movie de-emphasizes the predatory nature of the relationship, effectively normalizing it on-screen. Of course, the film also invites sympathy for a concentration camp guard because she can’t read and portrays her surviving victim as a cold, wealthy New York socialite. Morally, the picture is just a complete muddle.
Fiftyfooton 25 Dec 2008 at 9:38 pm 24Remember this woman (Winslet) was tossed into the street at age 15 by parents who were filthy stinking hippies, to coin a phrase. Her husband made his name in the London theater, featuring famous women stripping naked as a draw. I think she’s spent her life looking for some selfless guidance, and has come up short. I refuse to believe she’s a bad person at heart.
MovieBobon 25 Dec 2008 at 9:54 pm 25One assumes that the teenaged male actor in question could not be reached for comment, as he was busy being carried about on the shoulders of his school chums…
(not my joke, but what works works.)
People realize that “statutory rape” is a legal term-of-art, right? That it’s just a shorthand for essentially saying “legal STATUTE by which sexual contact with a partner under X age will be prosecuted as rape regardless of consent?” In other words, it sounds to me as though Mrs. Winslet - however uncharacteristically ineloquently- is opining that she doesn’t view her character as a rapist and that the legal term is a bit loaded. Agree or disagree, but it’s not exactly an unheard of sentiment.
It’d be interesting to determine if the term actually even applies in this particular case. The film takes place in Germany, and the relationship in question happens in the 50s (60s?) Does Germany HAVE statutory rape as a seperate (lesser) felony than full-on child sex crimes like the U.S. does? Did they have it at that point? And would THIS relationship even qualify? Even here stateside, the rules are different state-to-state… and even pairing-to-pairing - it’s not unheard of for the “rules” to be different if the older partner is female.
Zundfolgeon 25 Dec 2008 at 11:02 pm 26So where were all these hot older women that want to do 15 year old boys when I was 15?
Face it folks, morality here is dead … the middle east is about to erupt and we just elected the Antichrist. This is all about to come to an interesting conclusion soon.
Moon 25 Dec 2008 at 11:09 pm 27I read that interview with her and was so disgusted. I really liked her as an actress but I’ve never known anything about her as a person. To see the way she thinks truly lowered my opinion of her. Very disappointing indeed.
You wonder how people with children of their own manage to excuse these things. Would she want an adult doing this with one of her children? Or are all these people so lost and confused that they wouldn’t even care if it was their own child?
I don’t even know anymore. It is truly sad.
whiskeyon 26 Dec 2008 at 1:00 am 28MovieBob — you and I agree that teen age boys and girls are biologically capable of sex, and often engage in it.
But let’s ask ourselves what is the social consequence of celebrating the erasing of boundaries, of propriety, of a sense of moral order and limits?
Religion and religious beliefs are quite likely an evolutionary response to the question of how dangerous tool-making primates live together with the required social cohesion and not a massive (and unsustainable) police force, particularly in times of environmental upheaval. Every society has religion and religious beliefs, because they as an evolutionary feature provide “enough” social cohesion, “rule playing” and “glue” to keep highly emotionally and intellectually charged primates together.
This includes limits on sex and sexual freedom.
Let’s ignore the question of the boy, for the moment. What is the social consequence of encouraging women (who are older) to have sex with young men (lacking resources to create families)? Nothing good IMHO.
Would the boy be “ruined?” Likely not, but the Burkean response is that social rules and traditions and limits are there for a reason, and Darwin tells us that the evolutionary response to highly social but competitive animals is religion and religious based rules.
There are solid social reasons to place limits on adolescent sex. Not the least of which is forcing adolescents of the opposite sex to play romance without sex, so that learned behaviors of what works in relationships are established among boys and girls.
Relationships don’t happen by “magic” they need to be taught, and limits on adolescent sex are training wheels for learning about relationships.
Hollywood Zon 26 Dec 2008 at 7:43 am 29First of all, you’re getting your 2008 Kate Winslet movies mixed up. She’s not having sex with Leo in the movie that the aforementioned quote is stirring up so much controversy. They’re in Revolutionary Road together, where she’s married to Leo. Nothing statutory about that, however, some of the sex scenes may be classified as rape from what I hear.
The movie she’s referring to is The Reader, which the story, in and of itself, is drawing a lot of fire from critics without having to mention the “statutory rape” scene. If anything, the movie has loose morals as it stands.
What Kate might be saying is in defense of the story, but not the act. On paper and in the context of the story, it makes sense, but when the one scene is taken out and looked at on it’s own, then yes, that’s how it seems.
So while, yes, that scene may be drawing some controversy and yes, her comment may not make sense to many, consider this: Lolita is considered a classic film, but an older man has sex with a teenage girl. When a woman has sex with a teenage man, the film should be condemned? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Growltigeron 26 Dec 2008 at 7:56 am 30It’s about how jaded our society has become. Sex between adult males/females — that’s been around since we climbed down from the trees. Nothing avant garde about that! Even cavemen knew how to do it.
And boy, do “with it” people want to believe they are avant garde! Who wants to be like Grandma?
Getting married. Pooo. That’s sooooo old fashioned, sooooo passe, sooooo boring. Ask Susan and Tim, Jessica and Sam, Goldie and Kurt, Bradgelina. If one wants to be sophisticated, one finds a compatible other and they just live together. No traditional sh** for them!
Having kids without a father? What’s the big deal? Ask Jodie, Callista how easy it is. Just don’t ask the welfare mom struggling in a roach infested tenement. How the hell does she know how cool it is to be a single mother. Besides, now that Obama is president, he’ll make sure everyone on the dole gets a private jet like them.
Homosexuality has been around since God was a child. So it’s not avant garde unless they get married. It’s become like a game. Let’s see just how much we can cram down the traditionalists throat! They like Christmas? Do away with Christmas! They don’t want their kids taught it’s better to have two mommies or two daddies than a daddy and a mommy? Cram it down their throats in public school. After all not a lot of people can afford to send their brats to private school like we.
Sex with children used to be called incest, but hey, what’s incest among friends anyway? Since everything else is okay, where do we go to be different? Avant garde! Yep. Screw the neighbor’s twelve year old; Wow! Look how sophisticated she is is!!!!
God only knows what’s next.
Stephanieon 26 Dec 2008 at 8:39 am 31Sex with children is called paedophilia and if its also your own kid then its incest.
But when a child reaches the age of 12 or 13 its not according to experts paedophilia its a young adult with an older adult. However even at that age its not right. Period.
NCCon 26 Dec 2008 at 8:58 am 32Eugene Volokh and Ann Althouse have been writing on this issue. A link to Volokh is here: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_21-2008_12_27.shtml#1230229488.
A link to Althouse is here:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/12/kate-winslet-is-so-offended-by-use-of.html.
As you can see, Volokh casts some doubt on whether it was illegal for an adult to have sex with a 15-year old at the time and place depicted in the movie.
sauropodon 26 Dec 2008 at 9:19 am 33Wasn’t there a case not long ago where an 18-year-old boy who had sex with a 17-year-old girl was charged with statutory rape? There was an outcry, and rightly so.
It seems to me that our laws have not kept pace with changing moral standards. Teenage sex is much more common today than it was when those laws were written, yet the laws are still on the books. At some point our society is going to have to acknowledge reality and lower the age of consent - maybe not to 15, but certainly to 16.
For most of history, it was considered perfectly normal for 15-year-olds (and even younger kids) to have sex, get married, etc. When the lifespan was shorter, it was almost a necessity to get started on raising a family as soon as possible. From a historical perspective, the attempt to restrain teenage sex is a weird anomaly; and from a biological perspective, it’s probably impossible anyway.
That said, I have no desire to see this movie.
miles archeron 26 Dec 2008 at 9:55 am 34Quick question. Is the age difference in ‘The Reader’ substantially different than that in Robert Mulligan’s ‘Summer of ‘42?’ Is the latter as disreputable as the former?
Oh, and Growltiger? Sex with children was never called ‘incest’. And as much as I enjoyed the sentence ‘what’s incest among friends anyway’? — the latter is, of course, impossible. (Incest refers to sex between siblings or between a parent and a child.)
locomotivebreath1901on 26 Dec 2008 at 11:01 am 35Why so surprised?
It’s hollyweird’s guttural meme: sexualize anyone, anytime, for any reason. Follow the money.
Winslet is simply another shallow, amoral bag of hormones who performs like a puppet in such celluloid screed.
mrpitheron 26 Dec 2008 at 12:51 pm 36In 1981 the US Supreme Court upheld a California statutory rape law in a case involving sex between two 17-year-olds where only the male was charged and convicted. The justification for the difference, in the words of one justice, was that only females can get pregnant. To some extent, that was also consistent with the old “joke” about how sex for an underage girl was rape, but for an underage boy was an education.
Double standards aside, most statutory rape laws have changed in several ways relevant to this thread:
First, most of them are written in a gender neutral way so that it doesn’t matter whether the male or female is the older partner (or, for that matter, whether the older person is of the same sex).
Second, most of the new laws don’t use the term “statutory rape.” Rather, they tend to define various types (degrees) of sexual assaults that range from inappropriate touching to rape.
Third, many of these laws incorporate age distinctions. If, for example, the older partner is within two to five years of age of the younger then it may not be considered a crime, or may be of a lesser degree.
Fourth, the age of consent is often younger than 18. The age may not be specifically mentioned in statutes, but is often in the 14-16 range. (My state follows this pattern as the age of consent is not clearly stated, but seems to be 16 given how the statutes are written.)
Finally, some states (though very few) are getting away from the “strict liability” nature of age requirements. Still, the defense will need to be more than “She looked 18!”
Of course, even if something is legal it doesn’t mean it’s okay.
Plus, Winslet is still a twit.
OTon 26 Dec 2008 at 1:35 pm 37“For most of history, it was considered perfectly normal for 15-year-olds (and even younger kids) to have sex, get married, etc. When the lifespan was shorter, it was almost a necessity to get started on raising a family as soon as possible. From a historical perspective, the attempt to restrain teenage sex is a weird anomaly; and from a biological perspective, it’s probably impossible anyway.”
Sorry to get off topic but I see this all the time and its not particularly true for Western society. The median age of first marriages in 17th century England was actually pretty similar to today’s so this isn’t exactly a weird modern anomaly.
Kiton 26 Dec 2008 at 2:01 pm 38Time to jump on the “Hate Winslet” bandwagon.
As much as I enjoyed Branagh’s HAMLET (and felt it superior to the Gibson), Helena Bonham Carter was the better Ophelia. (Talent and Looks)
moviebobon 26 Dec 2008 at 2:09 pm 39whiskey
“MovieBob — you and I agree that teen age boys and girls are biologically capable of sex, and often engage in it.”
You’d be surprised to see how much of a ‘prude’ I actually am about this - though if you were to find and inquire with any young man who came within reaching distance of my baby sister back when she was a teenager, I’m sure they’d be glad to expand on the story…
“But let’s ask ourselves what is the social consequence of celebrating the erasing of boundaries, of propriety, of a sense of moral order and limits?”
Increased freedom is decreased stability. It’s a universal constant that you will never change.
When it comes to it, this area of the law is one of those rare occasions on which I grudgingly support erring on the side of “order.” It’s true enough that everyone develops at a different pace, and that there’s no magic switch that flips from “unready” to “ready” for sex at a specific age or moment anymore than there is for alcohol consumption or anything else we put an age limit on. But we CAN, in these two instances, make a reasonably educated guess at an “average” and make the laws accordingly - this is the difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist.
You’ll NEVER hear me argue that the “age of consent” ought be done away with, but I CAN absolutely understand the reasoning of those who object to the use of “statutory rape” legal manuvers. In a way, it’s not unlike the objection to “hate crime” laws, as the impetus for creating these legal distinctions - “statutory RAPE” in addition to violation of age of consent laws, “HATE crime” in addition to assault - is to give the law the ability to ‘double-kill’ an offender when they believe the crime in-context deserves a harsher punishment. Nobody likes dirty old men chasing teenaged skirts, just as nobody likes the Klan, but do we really want or need the “extra ammo” if it means muddying the legal waters in a broader sense?
A nationwide, agreed-upon age of consent (I’d say 17, though in most states I’m fairly certain it’s LOWER than that) and subsuming the statutory rape concept back into the broader violation-of-age-of-consent laws would, I think, be a more reasonable system than what is in place now. Though, to be honest, it’s not something I’d call a vital problem in need to action at the moment.
Personally, my more practical solution would be to invent cell-phones with built-in mace and a concealed, spring-activated 2-inch blade and require these features to be included on all school-aged girls’ phones. Might as well cut down on the problem at the source
whiskeyon 26 Dec 2008 at 5:13 pm 40MovieBob — the dirty secret of teen girls is that they often chase guys older than themselves. Mid to late twenties. The over sexualization of our culture and prolonged adolescence is part of the problem.
What is sad about today’s spate of movies is that they don’t cover the real issues of romance. In an era of limitless choices, men and women face huge obstacles in staying together, namely so many alternatives, and little if any penalties for bailing out and chasing someone new.
I do think it’s tragic there is little safe harbor for teens of both sexes to learn about love and romance with sex being a line not crossed. We teach teen agers all about STDs, pregnancy, and sexual assault but not a thing about how to become a good husband or wife, and how to make a relationship work.
sauropodon 26 Dec 2008 at 5:15 pm 41“Fourth, the age of consent is often younger than 18. The age may not be specifically mentioned in statutes, but is often in the 14-16 range.”
I didn’t know this, but I just looked it up, and you’re right.
http://snipurl.com/95b0o
“Third, many of these laws incorporate age distinctions. If, for example, the older partner is within two to five years of age of the younger then it may not be considered a crime, or may be of a lesser degree.”
Also true, as the above link indicates.
I guess the law is less inflexible and more realistic in this area than I thought. Thanks for the information!
sauropodon 26 Dec 2008 at 5:24 pm 42“The median age of first marriages in 17th century England was actually pretty similar to today’s so this isn’t exactly a weird modern anomaly.”
I’d thought it was a lot lower in the days when life expectancy was shorter, but according to this Google Books source, you’re right:
http://snipurl.com/95b7l
The book says, “The median age for marriage was 24 for men and 22 for women throughout the seventeenth century” in England.
As of 2003 the median age for marriage in the US was 27 for men and 25 for women, so there hasn’t been that much of a shift.
Basically, pretty much everything I said in my original comment was wrong.
pageivon 26 Dec 2008 at 5:43 pm 43Wish I was 17 with her…
Templaron 26 Dec 2008 at 7:27 pm 44It seems to me that our laws have not kept pace with changing moral standards.
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that this is a bad thing.
00smoothieon 28 Dec 2008 at 7:58 am 45And the left complains about “cultural imperialism”, then one of their biggest movie stars comes out with something like this…what a sick joke. If our values offend you, Kate, stay in England and make all your movies over there.
lakerchick79on 20 Feb 2009 at 11:18 am 46I can’t believe most of the people on this site. Kate is not stupid. She did more than just read the script before she took this role. She read and reread the book until she fully understood what the relationship between the two really meant. It was truly a love story. Remember it was set in a time where their age difference might have been frowned upon, but was not under scrutniy by the law. I do not think having sex with someone under age is right, but in this case the boy was wise beyond his years and it is I think they really did love each other. It was not just some dirty sex act.
russon 15 May 2010 at 6:15 pm 47‘Kate Winslet Offended That ‘Statutory Rape’ Is Used To Describe, Uhm, Well, Statutory Rape’
More silly Hollywood philosophy.
I just came across your blog. Excellent blog header and theme.