MovieChat Forums > The Way We Were (1973) Discussion > Should Katie go to prison?

Should Katie go to prison?

posted 9 years ago by disinterested_spectator
13 replies | jump to latest

Given the standards of today, and reversing the sexes, if a man had sex with a woman who was so passed out drunk she did not know what she was doing, we would say that he raped her and deserved to go to prison. So, if this movie were set in the twenty-first century, and Katie had sex with Hubbell while he was too passed out drunk to know what he was doing, would she deserve to go to prison for rape?

Some might say “No,” because they later fell in love and got married, thereby making it all right. But suppose Hubbell had found out what happened and been outraged. Would that have made what she did deserving of a prison sentence?

I guess I have a double standard when it comes to rape. A man should never take advantage of a woman that way, but I just don’t think I would want to see Katie doing hard time for what she did, even if it happened today.

[–] karmala2 9 years ago

...too passed out drunk to know what he was doing...

would render a man "nonfunctional". Rape, technically, is forced penetration; so you're suggesting she raped him some other,"ahem", way?

I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes!

[–] disinterested_spectator 9 years ago

I was going by what happened in the movie. If a woman were as drunk as Hubbell, and a man had sex with her, it would count as rape because she would be too drunk to consent. And yet he seemed to be able to perform. Is it your opinion that what happened in the movie is impossible?

If rape is defined in terms of penetration, then Katie did not rape Hubbell. Perhaps I should have asked whether Katie sexually assaulted Hubbell, since that term has broader scope. And if so, should she go to prison, same as a man would?

[–] karmala2 9 years ago

Well, the scene ends in a fade-out as they were kissing and embracing-maybe he just passed out on top of her-so we're not sure how what happens subsequently.

I'm actually grossed out by the fact that they were kissing shortly after he threw-up in the bathroom, if I remember correctly.

EEEWWW!

I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes!

[–] toto24522 9 years ago

Agreed, Disinterested Spectator. If rape is defined as "forced penetration" as well as a "hate crime", then Katie didn't rape Hubbell, and Hubbell didn't rape Katie.

My two cents:

If memory serves me - Katie apprehensively got naked and climbed into bed with a sleeping/passed out Hubbell. Laying on her back with the sheet pulled up to cover her body, she appeared to be nervous about the situation she just willingly put herself into.

Eventually she started playing with his hair (that action was repeated throughout the movie - fixing his bangs) He then nuzzled up to her neck, which allowed her to have her arm around him, followed by some kissing-type action. He slowly climbed on top of her, and what appeared to be intercourse occurred to some extent, based on Katie's dreamy eyes closing and opening, while the soft musical soundtrack played in the background. In the midst of it all, Hubbell appeared to have gone back to sleep, and she said something akin to, "Hubbell, it's Katie. Did you know it was Katie?"

There was no rape. It was more about Katie losing her virginity to Hubbell Gardener of all men - the boy she had a secret crush on in college, someone she cared about and kept tabs on, if able (she bought his book) Therefore, that night was a huge event in her life, which Hubbell apparently didn't even recall the next day. Bummer, dude.

He couldn't have been all that drunk anyway - at some point between his being jolted awake by the whistling teapot and Katie getting into bed with him, he had wits about him to take off his t-shirt and dog tags.

Of course, I could be wrong about all of the above.

[–] disinterested_spectator 9 years ago

Your memory is impeccable.

For what it is worth, I have raised this question a couple of times on my blog on a liberal website, and I have only had one person answer it. It was a woman, and she said Katie raped Hubbell. I think liberals are conflicted, because they don’t like double standards regarding sex, so they want to say “yes,” but their common sense says “no.” Everyone here has so far said “no.” And I too say “no,” liberal though I am.

[–] toto24522 9 years ago

Wow - thank you for saying so.

And, well....here goes:

I'm not quite sure what world someone would be from if they were convinced that Katie raped Hubbell - a Twilight Zone episode, perhaps? Bizarro World, or Island of Misfit Toys? We, the viewers, were all given the same information before Katie and Hubbell ever ended up in bed together.

In years previous, Katie and Hubbell were college classmates. Even though at times they called each other out on one another's sh!t, they both admired each other from afar and sometimes, close up. Take for example, the scene in which Hubbell told Katie he sold one of his stories. He saw her walking down the street after she got out of work, and called out something like, "Have a drink with me." Although she claimed she didn't drink, she hesitantly walked across the street and did indeed sip a beer with him.

When she repeated the Wallis Simpson headline, it was apparent she was nervous being in the company of the "All American boy" - that's how she viewed him. Plus, let's not forget...."Everything was too easy for him." (or however that line went) Even something as subtle as Hubbell tying her shoe and saying, "Go get 'em, Katie." indicated he was in awe of her, just as she was with him. They were attracted to one another for their individual qualities, yet that attraction was unrequited.

Even when he was in her bed. But, how was that accomplished? She merely asked him (after brushing his bangs) if he'd like to go for coffee.
Little did we know, coffee would be in her apartment - how many flights up?

She hurried ahead of him to set the stage -- after all, Gardener was about to enter her several floor walk-up apartment. And while she was scurrying to create the appealing coffee ensemble, he was hurling in her bathroom.

Next we see a trail of clothes leading to her boudoir, then HG himself, snoring. In Katie's bed. That in itself caused her to be nervous. The coffee cups were shaking in their saucers, for the luvva gawd! BUT - the whistling teapot brings everyone to their senses......if only for a moment.

So as far as the event itself of them having alleged sex, lest we forget -- the next morning while she was perfectly coiffed(with hair, make-up, nail polish intact) she orchestrated a lovely breakfast, ironed his uniform jacket, doled out advice as how to get rid of a headache, offered real coffee, confessed to putting his watch on the bedpost, gave him all her phone numbers for next time he can't find a hotel room while in town, and gazed upon at him longingly between the stair railings outside her apartment door...?

"Rape?" Pishaw!

And even though she appeared to be hurt that he didn't remember "About last night", she still wished him good luck (or something akin to that) and couldn't wait for him to call her - based on her testiness in an eventual scene.

When Hubbell called her at work with, "Ok, ok, I'll sign up!" she dashed out and bought the best of every - Steaks, potatoes,chives, pie! She didn't know if he even liked pot roast and it has to be made the day before(that part is pretty much true) and she spent the last of her ration stamps, and gave him an outburst of why he had to stay for supper....he had to stay!

Hubbell had us (we, the audience in those movies theatres of the 1970s) at, "What kind of pie?" And Katie had us when she appeared to have grown a backbone and would not allow anything to silence her -- along with having her hair ironed.

We had a hunch something would ignite between the two, yet there would be eventual problems. Back in the early to mid 1970s, that's how love story-ish movies were. We didn't need to see T & A, or graphic sex - we were allowed to use our imagination, and fill in the blanks for ourselves.

I could go on....and on.

Disinterested Spectator - I'd be really interested in reading (in silence) your blog when it comes to your sole responder's thoughts on the topic of Katie "raping" Hubbell". That is, if you'd care to send me the link....?

[–] disinterested_spectator 9 years ago

If you remembered all that without watching the movie again within the last twenty-four hours, you really do have a good memory.

The first time I wrote an essay on this movie was here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/21/1301007/-The-Way-We-Were-and- the-Way-We-Are

Not a single person commented on it. I’d like to flatter myself that my questions were too tough for those who read it, but the simple truth may be that no one cared enough to comment.

Several months later I wrote an essay on the question of consent and the double standard, which mentioned The Way We Were to illustrate a point I was trying to make:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/14/1336647/-Consensual-Sex-and-t he-Double-Standard

This one precipitated a lot of comments. Somewhere in those comments is one by the woman who said if what happened between Katie and Hubbell happened today, she would regard it as a crime. No one else addressed the scene in the movie directly.

[–] toto24522 9 years ago

This is awesome and thank you for posting those links - I look forward to reading them. I promise I will get back to you -- might not be tonight though; my apologies.

[–] IcingOnTheCake 9 years ago

Men can be raped. The body can react even if the mind says no. Women can have orgasms when raped and men can get an erection even if he doesn't want to have one. Men can also be drugged and even slipped Viagra.

I don't see it as rape, especially as things were thought about during '73 and earlier. He went home with her and it seemed consensual.

[–] tseybert 9 years ago

I'm curious.

How many men go to prison for getting into bed naked with a woman and then lying there while the woman crawls on top of him.

I can't think of a single one.

Janet! Donkeys!

[–] disinterested_spectator 9 years ago

What started my thinking along these lines was recent legislation regarding rape, especially on college campuses, such as the one reported in this article:

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/29/352385534/calif-assault-law-requires-col lege-students-to-give-consent-before-sex

In particular, there was this statement:

The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.

The article did not say what the penalty for having sex with someone who is too drunk to consent would be, nor has anyone yet been convicted under this new law. But presumably the idea is that a man would go to prison for having sex with a woman who was drunk.

However, following your suggestion, a man might try the following line of defense: “Your honor, I did not take advantage of her. I was just lying there naked and she got on top of me.”

In any event, my ultimate point is that despite the gender-neutral language and the fact that people claim to abhor double standards in matters sexual, I think there is and ought to be a double standard when it comes to rape (or sexual assault), which is why I would not want Katie to go to prison, even if she got on top of him.

[–] masemiller 8 years ago

You're an idiot

[–] leader-7 7 years ago

This was no rape. It was seduction. There's a big difference.