So in the wonderous world of Murica 18 year olds are sentenced and branded sexoffenders for dating anyone <18. But it's okay to make a movie touching the subject albeit briefly... As long as it's a hot blonde in a crisis... Or does she get arrested at the end of the movie?
Anyways would like to watch the movie, but putting that relationship in it, with some of these absolutely ridiculous things going, well thought muricans were do "correct...."
How do you know he's under 18?
It doesn't matter at all, because the age of consent in Connecticut, where the movie is set, happens to be 16.
Only 11 US States have set an age of consent at 18, and some of those states lower the age of consent depending on age difference between the two parties.
The majority of states have age of consent at 16.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Most times, statutory rape charges are pressed by the parents, and in the case of this story, the kid's dad didn't have a huge problem with it. I don't think he really was comfortable with it, but he wasn't entirely upset, either. I think part of him was kinda proud of his kid for getting a babe like her...It IS a double standard, but that double standard does sometimes exist in LIFE, and this movie is just an illustration of that.
That said, when I was 18 and my then-boyfriend was 17, his mom tried to have me arrested for statutory rape. I bet their situation would be a lot different if there was a protective mama involved...
Movies like this give an unrealistic outlook on romance and urges the easily impressionable and naive to say "But it's life." For the most part, no.
2013 Most Anticipated - Stoker, The Spectacular Now, Frances Ha
Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you just some irrational parent with a growing teenager?
..be nice.
It depends on state (around half the states have the age of consent at 16, while the others at 18), and in the movie the state in question have it as 16...although it's questionable as she's a lifeguard, he'd effectively never be allowed to go to the pool while she were on duty or it could go into illegal territory based on Connecticut state law.
share..I was curious too about that...they mention several times in the film that he's 16, but as you've said, the age of consent in Connecticut is 16...so, that's why I wasn't sure how her friend was threatening her with telling his father and the authorities if technically, she broke no laws..she isn't a teacher, and I can't imagine that being a lifeguard carries any of the same liabilities as had she actually taught at his school...the film does show the same lack of concern by the parent and authorities alike, as we've seen all too often in the many cases of female teachers involved with their underage male students in recent years. I don't think anyone doubts for a second that the dad's indifference to his 16 year child having sex with his 30 year old employee, would have been much different has his child been a girl and the lifeguard been a man. The female teacher/male student scenario is certainly tolerated much more so in most of the recent cases than vice-versa. You also rarely see the females ever serve any time in these cases and more often than not get probation only. I don't believe the guilty males would be so lucky. Again, I did find the double standard here interesting, noting that most of the film, their relationship was treated more like a love story, until toward the end when she is discovered and her friends find out. Had their genders been reversed, the male lifeguard would have been portrayed as "creepy" and sinister, whereas Kristen Bell's character definitely was not. Not a bad film in one sense, but it's still a little concerning that they ultimately seem to be writing off this inappropriate relationship as a harmless fling.
shareYou need to look at your facts again regarding the minimum age of consent.
Most of the states where minimum consent age is 16, that only applies when there is a minimum age difference between the two parties!
I assume you specifically mention Connecticut, because it's where the film takes place. In Connecticut the provisions for a minor over 13 years old mean there must be no more than a three year age difference.
On top of that, there instances when the minimum consent age is automatically 18:
-Where one person is a guardian, or responsible for the general supervision, of the other. See C.G.S. § 53a-71(a)(4).
-Where one person is an athletic coach or an intensive instructor (e.g. piano teacher) outside of a school setting, and the other is being coached or instructed. See C.G.S. § 53a-71(9)(B).
-Where one person's professional, legal, occupational or volunteer status gives him/her a role of supervision, power, or authority, over the other's participation in a program or activity, and the older person is at least 20-years-old. See C.G.S. § 53a-71(a)(4).
I have not seen the movie yet but, from the trailer I've seen, I would assume one of the above three might apply (shes a lifeguard, he's a minor)?
Even without either of those statutes, the state can still legally bring about formal charges against a 29 year old on a 16 year old in Connecticut.
Errrr...no I don't. You might because you're bringing socially acceptable standards into a legal situation which does not apply in this situation.
As mentioned in my initial post the life guard thing makes it's questionable but if we ignored that for the sake of argument, regardless of your copy paste from wikipedia, the state wouldn't bring formal charges in CT based on the age difference. Had she been a dog groomer at 29 and he still 16, CT law would deem it legal as would many states in the US despite this being socially unacceptable to many.
dude first of all ---a lifeguard is someone of supervision and holds *responsibility" of taking care of others, mostly children at the pool. OF COURSE lifeguard would apply to what is legally and accurately stated. seriously, you don't know what you're talking so stop. i live in CT and actually had a friend in this situation before and that person did not get away with it at all....you are wrong. end your argument because you don't have one. when i saw this movie i laughed my ass off because even the writers either didnt do their research or didnt seem to care that people have knowledge of what is legal and that she prob wouldnt get away with this? and neither would the freaking principal partying with her students. this movie is a failure.
shareGoogle is your friend. States set a minimum age of consent, which most states have set at 16. It matters not if one party is 16 and the other is 94.
"Most of the states where minimum consent age is 16, that only applies when there is a minimum age difference between the two parties!" Wrong. The only time age difference comes into effect is when there is sexual contact when one party is UNDER the age of consent.
You are mistaken about Connecticut rules. There is no way the state can bring charges against a 29 year old who is sleeping with a 16 year old unless the 29 year old is in a position of authority over the 16 year old. Being a lifeguard does not meet the qualifications. That would be like saying being a convenience stork clerk would be unable to sleep with a customer of his or hers because the clerk has authority over them as a customer.
Further, the age of 13 is the minimum age of consent in Connecticut as long as the other party is less than 3 years older than the 13 (or 14, or 15 year old). "Connecticut recognizes that minors who are at least 13 can consent to sexual activity if (and only if) there is less than a 3-year age difference."
i love how you just totally owned that person with truth bombs because you did actual research that lots of people fail to do and just talk out their a$$es hahahah.
high five.
Actually in many what I would call 'theocratic' states - and we all have an idea as to who runs those states - it happens a lot. If a parent is upset about a relationship their 15 or 16 year-old is in, they'll wait until the person their little darling is dating turns 18, and then go to the police with all the rage they can muster. It's frightening. What's more, it's used in many places to target homosexual kids. Most of whom would more accurately be labelled as young adults.
So no, most definitely not "only in movies".
Kids ARE busted - and they ARE branded sex offenders.
See, this is America. Land of the free. The freedom for authoritarian right wing 'christians' to force their religion onto all of us - those most negatively affected and overpowered by the nasty theocratic tendencies of America's christian right are, of curse, are the young and the vulnerable.
Sorry cinesimoj, but the Kaitlyn Hunt case does not apply to the scenario you provided. I'm assuming that's what your referring to, and it simply doesn't work because the girl she molested was 14, and they began their sexual relationship after Hunt turned 18. You can try to make this a gay-rights case, but it's nothing more than an example of an adult who was a sexual predator. I'm disgusted by all of you people defending her, like you would have any sympathy if Hunt had been a man. How dare you blame conservative Christians for the situation. The DA offered her a very lenient plea deal that she refused, and then turned it into a political crusade to save her ass.
shareSorry cinesimoj, but the Kaitlyn Hunt case does not apply to the scenario you provided. I'm assuming that's what your referring to, and it simply doesn't work because the girl she molested was 14, and they began their sexual relationship after Hunt turned 18. You can try to make this a gay-rights case, but it's nothing more than an example of an adult who was a sexual predator. I'm disgusted by all of you people defending her, like you would have any sympathy if Hunt had been a man. How dare you blame conservative Christians for the situation. The DA offered her a very lenient plea deal that she refused, and then turned it into a political crusade to save her ass.100% agree. Had Kaitlynn been an 18 year old male having sex with a 14 year old female, those who defend Kaitlyn would see it a completely different way. A 14 year old can not legally consent to having sex with an adult for a reason. Their brains (scientifically speaking) are not fully developed, nor are their emotions. An 18 year old does not need to be having sex with a 14 year old, no matter what the circumstances are.
In my glorious world of Murica, each state can set it's own laws. And each person is free to google the age of consent for any state in the Union.
In the state of Connecticut, the age of consent is 16.
Therefore, anything the lead actress does with a 16 year old is completely legal, as long as she doesn't film or photograph it.
Therefore, anything the lead actress does with a 16 year old is completely legal, as long as she doesn't film or photograph it.
All of the legalities aside she is still having sex with a child. The fact that he is in school and referred to as a "school boy" is enough to show what she was doing was massively wrong. The fact that the movie glossed over that fact was shocking and also goes to emphasis the difference between when a man does something like this and is labelled a pervert / paedo contrasted to when a woman carries out such actions and its suddenly ok with comments like "oh yeah it's ok it was love"...what a load of bollocks. I would hope that in real life she would of been locked up for the rest of her life as she should of been in the film to send a clear message to people who try and take advantage of children like she did.
shareJesus what's wrong with you, it's not like she committed murder or anything.... locked up for life for being in a relationship with a minor.. Some minors are actually more advanced in their minds than others you know, and some are, even tough they are over 18, still a child in their brain, but then it's suddenly ok right?? Each of these cases has to be looked on very specifically and individually. And because she was in a relationship with somebody who is nearly an adult(and not a small child anymore!) she deserves to be locked up for life?? Your sense of justice is truly flawed.
share"All of the legalities aside she is still having sex with a child. The fact that he is in school and referred to as a "school boy" is enough to show what she was doing was massively wrong."
So you don't agree with the above statement then ? You are supporting middle aged women stalking school boys from the playground and then having sex with them ?
Even though they are highly likely to be damaged mentally from the ordeal and research shows that they are nearly always are you are supporting this behaviour ?
And you ask what's wrong with me and my logic ? Look in the mirror my dear its your perspective that is screwed up.
We call them children for a reason the fact that some people seem to be supporting having sex with them is quite frankly astonishing and yes 16 is a child if the law says so or not.
The next time a 30 year old bloke is caught having sex with a 16 year old and your local newspaper posts an article about it I hope you write in saying that you support the action of the guy and think its fine and "its not as if he has committed murder or anything"..
But no then it will be a different story wont it....
Oh yeah, and you say "putting all legalities aside": well the law says you're an adult at this and that age. So when you say to put them aside, why do you contradict yourself by saying that he was still child? If the legal age doesn't matter anymore, where do you draw the line? He's a bit younger, she's a bit older, but they are both young, both unexperienced in relationships(She's not 45 you know). So where's the problem? It's only in YOUR brain.
share"So where's the problem ?"
The problem is with the fact that she shouldn't be having sex with kids who are highly likely to be not developed enough emotionally and psychologically to handle the experience.
This is why we lock up paedophiles because they take advantage of young people and exploit it for their own gains and because what they do damages the child often beyond repair through engaging with them on a sexual nature.
So to make it clear once more SHE IS HAVING SEX WITH A CHILD and that is horribly wrong.
I think most sane people will agree with that statement. You however seem to think its fine, perhaps in your state you all go around having sex with children and its the norm.
Thankfully the rest of the world is dare I say it a little more grown up than that.
You got me kinda wrong. I was talking mostly about the "life in prison" sentence that you think is right for her case. Certainly i agree that there are a lot of cases where this would be justified if it clearly is a case of abuse etc., and i don't support this behavior at all. But, in some cases, like in the movie, where the "minor" is 16, and she is 30, i don't agree with your dualistic good/bad justice. Was he really that young in his mind to be damaged from what happened? I don't think so. Were her intentions really the same as the ones from a pedophile/?? I disagree.
So what i say is that each case is different and has to be treated different. Was it questionable what she did? Yes, totally. But life in prison for that? There are certainly worse things and worse people who deserve that.
This is one of the points I was making because you saw the scenario in the way that the film portraits the relationship, you now believe that there are certain circumstances where it is ok for this type of relationship to happen.
My point is that if you had seen how messed up these types of relationships leave minors after the adult has had their fun (in my line of work I have seen lots) you would realise that they are very rarely ok in fact virtually never ok even if the child at the time says it is ok.
You have to understand that at that age (16) a childs mind is still developing and still being moulded into what type of adult they will turn into. Throwing them into a scenario which happens in the film can have serious consequences on that final outcome and nearly always comes back to haunt them later in life causing massive problems. So when you say "I don't think so" to him being affected, how do you know ? Hell even he doesn't know yet as a lot of the issues surface much later on in life. With issues like this psychological problems are often invisible and this is why the laws were made to protect children from these types of danger and to protect them from over eager adults. So yes I do think she should of been punished in the film and not just shrugged and walked off.
This is why films like this are so damaging where they cover very serious issues but then gloss over the important facts just to make it appeal to the female audience as some kind of twisted fantasy without highlighting the dangers.
I think most people know that having sex with children is bad and wrong and not to do it (at least I hope so). But after seeing this film how many middle aged women will start to question that and how many children who see the film will as well ? It seems to have made you think its ok to have sex with kids after watching it....
She isn't having sex with a "child" ...come on man. What she is doing isn't massively wrong either. He is 16 and 16 year olds are horny as hell. I'm 31 and have had to beat 16 yr olds off me with a stick. They are no saints. Nor are they gonna get hurt more by being in a relationship with an older woman than they would be by being in a relationship with a chick their own age. Before you fly to assumptions about me as you seem to have a tendency to do. No I am not into younger men. Try fight the urge to call me a pedo, okay.
I would hope that in real life she would of been locked up for the rest of her life as she should of been in the film to send a clear message to people who try and take advantage of children like she did.How exactly is she taking advantage of Jason?! (that's his name I think) If anything he would get more out of their relationship than she did. They enjoyed each other. When I was 16 I was seeing men her age and I learned a great deal. I wasn't hurt, scarred or taken advantage of.
Coming from someone called troll (albeit spelt differently) and with a profile picture of a woman holding up a beer can I think we can safely stop here. Do not feed the troll....
shareOoooh, look at that! Jumping to conclusions, are we? Troelsy is actually short for my last name which is Troelsgaard and the woman in the picture is Jena which just so happens to be me. Jena is holding a beer while taking a selfie but that doesn't mean that Jena is an alcoholic. Jena was having a party and 2 people were running late being stuck at work so she wanted to tease them.
Writing in 3rd person to convince you it's all a lie of course.
..be nice.
Thank God !
at last the voice of reason !!!
I totally agree with everything you wrote, I'm so puzzled by every other take on this that "she took advantage of him", no, they enjoyed each. I don't know if its because I come from Europe that I have a different view point, but was so pleased to read your post, thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness !
I'm European too. American's are particularly weird when it comes to these matters. I think it might be correlated to religiousness if I'm gonna be honest.
A 50yr old man with a 16 yr old girl is not a pedo. He might be a pig, but he's not a pedo. lol As I'm sure the idea for a 50yr old man of having a woman to bed that doesn't have saggy tits is a good one (lol) but it's just as much about emotions.
It can be hard for men though. Cos women can be quite harsh and controlling, belittling even, the older and wiser we get. And for men who many times are not good at dealing with their own feelings that can be very destructive. They want someone who can look up to them, cos that'll make them feel useful.
It goes for both genders in general that if they are with someone much younger they feel maybe more useful cos they can play the "wise one" and take care of the other, the provider, the teacher. Just like being with someone older can make you feel safer and feel like you can take some of the responsibility weighing us all down off your shoulders. How we feel and what we need changes through time.
..be nice.
I agree. A 16-year-old (guy or girl) is not the same as a child, in my opinion. That isn't to say it's not weird or creepy for a 30-year-old to go after someone that young, but I definitely don't think it's a crime that should result in someone being thrown in prison. Not unless there is literal rape or some type of stalking/abuse involved. I don't see how what happened in this film would cause damage to little Jason any more than any other sex/heartbreak he experienced with a girl his own age. Leigh was just as lost and confused as any teenager--that was half the point of the movie.
People always say there is a double standard, and sometimes there is, but when it comes to THIS particular story, I wouldn't feel any different if Leigh was a 30-year-old man and little Jason was a horny, flirty girl.
There is a line of maturity that does matter, but that line is different for each individual person. We have to set the standard at 16/17/18 because we have to set it somewhere or else there couldn't be law. But really, some 16-year-olds are more sexually and mentally mature than some 22-year-olds. I really think you have to take these things on a case-by-case basis.
emibel19, it is illegal everywhere in the US to photograph or video record people under the age of 18 in sexual or nude situations (there may be exceptions for art, etc,).
So you get the odd situation where a 68 year old woman could be legally copulating with, orally pleasing, and whatever else they want to do with her 16 year old boyfriend, but she would get arrested for having a nude picture of him.
Seems a bit off...
The whole idea of a 68 year old woman having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy seems a bit off, taking it to the level of spreading pictures around of that happening would be quite disturbing and damaging and that's probably why it's been made illegal.
shareYes, I can understand why distributing such pictures or videos would be illegal, but I don't see why the two parties involved shouldn't be able to keep them for themselves.
shareBecause in the world of digital photography and media sharing nothing is really ever safe or belongs to one person there is always a way of it being unintentionally distributed.
And once it's out it there it could potentially encourage others to try the same and from the perspective of healthy and productive relationships its not something we want.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well, it could be stolen and distributed by someone else, but that doesn't change my opinion that something that happens legally between two people should not be able to be recorded for later viewing by only those two people. The latter action does not automatically imply that it will be seen by someone else.
shareSome folks in thus thread make it sound like the movie passes off the relationship like a harmless fling, but I don't think they do. To som e extent the chain of events she sets off lead to the one teenager killing himself. Sure she "saves the life" of the other teen, but you could also say that her disruption kept the boy from going with his friend and so the friend didn't have his support and thus killed himself. Her actions did have huge consequences. (Mostly it did glorify sex with a near minor though). I applaud their courage for taking on a taboo subject even if they are a bit ambivalent about whether she did something wrong or not. I think her lack of experience and emotional maturity make it clear she was not a predator.
shareMy foot itches.
share