On Raging Bull (1980) and Jake Le Motta. - General Discussion Discussion

[–] Culburn (3638) 7 years ago

We don't think about Jake LaMotta. We don't see Jake LaMotta. We think & see "Jake LaMotta." It's why during the 3+ decades after "Raging Bull" released Media didn't show Jake Lamotta. They showed "Jake LaMotta." We see the girl he raped. She does look easily 21 as (our) "Jake" asserts. (That scene) instantly permits us to feel justified in liking "Jake" ever more. So, when "Jake" is manhandled in that Florida stockade our blood boils & we scoot up in our seats.

Notice only after Jake died did Jake appear in Media accounts. Jake, at last lived.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

Sorry but wasn't it "statutory ****" rather than ****?

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 7 years ago

I don't think mattered much when he had to hammer out his Championship Belt to get at the encrusted jewels in order to bribe.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

What's your point? . . statutory rape is worse than just rape

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

No its not, rape is arguably MUCH WORSE from both the law and moral points of view because in that case, besides there being no consent, it causes major physical and mental pain and suffering whereas statutory rape is different to that and involves someone who is a year or two before the official legal age of consent (and thankfully not much below) but isn't forced into it against their will, and the consequences for SR are in most cases for the victim far less than that of standard r or even sexual assault, even if I dare say that overall, I don't exactly approve of SR either including MORALLY at least anyways.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

Also, watch 2010's film called "Trust" with Clive Owen in it but in that film, even if there was full or at least for most part official consent between the two parties, it would still be statutory rape but because he forced her into it, even though she was also 14, it actually was r and that made the lead perpetrator Charlie in that film a true monster and not just a sexual rules, laws and regulations offender.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

so the rape of 30 year old woman is worse than a 200 pound man raping a 6 year old?
statutory rape whether consensual or not is rape.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

Your example isn't the definition of "statutory rape" - that what you mentioned is outright brutal child molestation.

Statutory rape usually would mean if someone has sex with someone, consensually, but the person on the receiving end is 16 or 17 rather than 18 where in most places is the correct age of consent.

What you mentioned isn't statutory rape but outright brutal rape of a minor, and it is damaging and awful beyond words.

The SR scenario that I described is nowhere near as awful and bad.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

June 08, 2017 12:06 PM

Updated June 08, 2017 12:41 PM

" A Lincolnton teen has been charged with statutory rape of a 6-year-old girl in connection with an incident that occurred on May 28, says the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigators say they determined that Kenneth Wade Fredell, 18, of Lincolnton, had inappropriately touched the victim. The incident happened at the victim’s home, and Fredell is known to her family, officials said.

He is charged with one felony count each of statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child.

Fredell was taken before a Lincoln County magistrate where he was ordered
placed in the Harven A. Crouse Detention Center under a $75,000 secured bond, officials said".

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

Except that LaMotta did not rape a 6-year old girl. It was statutory rape because he had intercourse with a minor. Lack of consent or use of force does not have to be involved. Therefore you can't just claim statutory rape is worse than just plain rape.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

tell that to the 6 year old little girl's mother

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

You like twisting words, don't you? So what do we tell the 16-year old girl who willingly gave her 18-year old boyfriend a blow job? Because that's also statutory rape. What's horrible about the 6-year old girl is that it's also plain rape. Which means forcibly and without consent

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

not according to the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, who I believe know more than you,

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

The problem is that you don't seem to understand the term (or anything I'm actually saying). Statutory rape simply means means sexual relations with a minor, consensual or not. Sometimes it can be as bad as child rape, sometimes it's just a teenage couple have consensual sex.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

sounds like you're singing a different tune, but hey, what do I and the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office know?

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

Nope, still saying what I've been saying all along (and you clearly fail to comprehend). The Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office is correct in calling sexual assault on a 6-year old statutory rape. You are wrong in suggesting that statutory rape is only limited to that. LaMotta never raped a 6-year old girl.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

now you're saying I said statutory rape is limited to 6 year olds? show me where I said that, why do you keep going back to Jake? this debate was never about him, guess you ran out of ammo,

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

You're clearly suggesting it. In response to the OP talking about the LaMotta case you replied out of nowhere: "so the rape of 30 year old woman is worse than a 200 pound man raping a 6 year old?"

And each time I point out that statutory rape simply means sexual relations with a minor, you bring up the 6-year old girl. Clearly you don't understand the term, unlike the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office. I'll go back to my first reply to you: "you can't just claim statutory rape is worse than just plain rape."

This debate was not about LaMotta? Please read the thread title and the first post again. This debate was certainly not about that 6-year old girl you keep bringing up...

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

" A Lincolnton teen has been charged with statutory rape of a 6-year-old girl in connection with an incident that occurred on May 28, says the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.
happened at the victim’s home, and Fredell is known to her family, officials said.

He is charged with one felony count each of statutory rape and taking indecent liberties with a child.
___________________________________________________________________________

[–] TheMan18 (1254) a day ago

Your example isn't the definition of "statutory rape" - that what you mentioned is outright brutal child molestation.

Statutory rape usually would mean if someone has sex with someone, consensually, but the person on the receiving end is 16 or 17 rather than 18 where in most places is the correct age of consent.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

you fail

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

Triple fail.

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

You're still ignoring the point I'm making.

Again, YOU brought up a 6-year old girl when the OP was talking about Jake LaMotta.

Also, he said USUALLY it refers to consensual sex with someone who's 16 or 17. And he's right that your definition is not THE definition of statutory rape. So double fail on your part.

Not only was your Lincoln example a bad one because it's in a different state and era than the Jake LaMotta case, North Carolina defines statutory rape as this:

"The North Carolina Age of Consent is 16 years old. In the United States, the age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 15 or younger in North Carolina are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape.

North Carolina statutory rape law is violated when a person has consensual sexual intercourse with an individual under age 16. A close in age exemption exists when the offender is less than 4 years older. No employee of a K-12(unless they are not a teacher, administrator, student teacher, safety officer, or coach) may engage in sexual activity with a student , unless they are married, regardless of age."

So let me ask you, is a 15-year old girl consensually giving her 18-year old boyfriend a blow job worse than a 30-year woman being brutally raped?

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

you failed and you know it, , , wait, maybe you don't know, hmmm.
have a nice day, somewhere else.

reply

[–] Stratego (31083) 7 years ago

Are you really that dense or are you just trying to act like a troll? I'll just quote you to make it extra clear: "statutory rape is worse than just rape". Not according to North Carolina law!

reply

[–] Retromogul (1082) 7 years ago

Hey just wanna ask, why not post this on the Raging Bull board? Direct a bit of traffic there.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

The love I have for that movie is a vital extension of my soul.

reply

[–] Retromogul (1082) 7 years ago

It is a great film. The way it elicits empathy for such an unappealing character is brillant.

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

Jake LaMotta was loudmouth trouble making jerk, my father, who was from Brooklyn, knew him and said he was the type of person not to associate with, he had no loyalty to anyone including his family and would knock you out for just looking at him the wrong way,
The movie portrayed him as bad but not that bad, he was 10 times worse in real life.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13188) 7 years ago

What was the worst thing LaMotta did in real life? And I sure hope he was no worse than, say, Mike Tyson?

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

I would love to ask my father more about Jake LaMotta but he passed away, all I know about the 2 of them is they were both trouble makers but both great fighters,
The movie was both really good and troublesome, since it was a true account of his life I didn't like the way he treated
his brother and his wife,
I loved the movie and they couldn't have casted 2 better actors to play the parts.

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 7 years ago

[The movie was both really good and troublesome, since it was a true account of his life I didn't like the way he treated
his brother and his wife, The movie was both really good and troublesome, since it was a true account of his life I didn't like the way he treated his brother and his wife,]

I'd read where the brother character in the film was in fact Jake's friend & not his brother. Can you confirm that information, yawk?

reply

[–] yawkee24 (629) 7 years ago

Let me try
______________________
Edit; from Jake LaMotta...............

How Jake La Motta Really Felt the First Time He Saw Raging Bull ...

“For the first time I thought, my God, was I beating up my brother and doing all that kinda stuff?

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 7 years ago

I was obviously mistaken. Thanks for the "leg work," yawk.

reply

[–] coloradotex (769) 7 years ago

Hey , it's a classic in my book.

Every time I think about his wife , Vikki - what a woman - her Playboy spread at 51 just knocks me out

reply

[–] Culburn (3638) 7 years ago

The scene in Jake's living room post Championship win with him & Pesci is worth the price of admission alone. The antiquated tv with the magnified glass.

"I'm not answerin' that question, ya screwball, you." I laugh every time.

Then Pesci walks out and Jakes goes upstairs to confront her. She's making the bed in the most intimate manner. Beautifully acted & logged for posterity.

Knocks her around then heads to Pesci's place.

In my book too, tex. You hit it square.

reply