Was Rose a Sexual Offender??

How can the encounter between Buddy and Rose be so okay, while similar encounters between 14-15 year-old boys and 30 year-old women is today now a crime?

Jaymaloney, Your other points in the post are interesting and would take more discussion that is possible on these message boards, however, I am intruiged by this question above.
I did not interpret that encounter as "so o.k." in any way, shape, or form. Did others? It was perverse, but was in the film to depict Rose's desparate need to be touched. I think if Buddy's parents had known about it, she would've been sent a-packing early on and there would not have been that bond between the mother and Rose. (....and there would have been no movie -- LOL!)
There is a play called "Tea & Sympathy" that deals with this an adult woman with teenage boys and the implications. You might find it interesting.

She's definitely not a sexual predator. She's very insecure and reluctantly lets him do it (if I remember correctly). Also he clearly liked what he was doing so there was no harm done.

"But in our wacky, feminized legal system (which ideologically must regard males and females as always the same, all the time), Rose would be a criminal. In this wacky, feminized time, fabulously gorgeous 20-something high school teachers get arrested for having sex with under-age boys."

I believe it also showed how patriarchal American society was back in the 30s. Remember, the the doctor and Buddy's father were trying to CIRCUMSIZE her so she would lose all pleasure to deflate her sexuality and the mother spoke out, "how dare they even think of such a horrid thing to do a woman." So it's okay for a man to be oversexed but a woman cannot?cause it just isn't natural for a woman to express this aspect of human nature.. And to take away all forms of pleasure for the rest of her life??who do they think they are?It defintely shows how that era where women were trying to get a voice within American society. I found this particular scene really distrubing.And what's even more disturbimg is that this practice is performed in the U.S. but its high occruence lies in Africa and is performed by OTHER women.

"Prior to the twentieth century, men assigned and defined women’s roles. Although all women were effected by men determining women’s behavior, largely middle class women suffered. Men perpetrated an ideological prison that subjected and silenced women. This ideology, called the Cult of True Womanhood, legitimized the victimization of women. The Cult of Domesticity and the Cult of Purity were the central tenets of the Cult of True Womanhood. Laboring under the seeming benevolence of the Cult of Domesticity, women were imprisoned in the home or private sphere, a servant tending to the needs of the family. Furthermore, the Cult of Purity obliged women to remain virtuous and pure even in marriage, with their comportment continuing to be one of modesty. Religious piety and submission were beliefs that were more peripheral components of the ideology, yet both were borne of and a part of the ideology of True Womanhood. These were the means that men used to insure the passivity and docility of women. Religion would pacify any desires that could cause a deviation from these set standards, while submission implied a vulnerability and dependence on the patriarchal head."- Deborah Thomas, "Changing of Womanhood"



Somebody's got to lead this revolution and I guess it's gonna be me.

I'm with that guy.


"A cage went in search of a bird."

I have to agree she was a pervert. No business being in that bed with that little boy.


Somebody's got to lead this revolution and I guess it's gonna be me.

Yes she was

"Statutory Rape" is just that ... "Statutory", that means it doesn't matter if both parties were willing participants. It's still against the law.

And it doesn't matter if the adult was in a "position of power" or anything, ANY adult is taking advantage of any minor (I know, I know...how do you define "a minor"?). People are all different, and a 14 year old might be way more mature than some 20-somethings, but the law has to draw an educated line somewhere. 14 is way below the line (nowadays).

Yes, I know that back in the 1800's people had their first kids at the age of 12 and died at the age of 35, but society is much different now. Maybe back then two 14 year olds could have a kid and survive by working on the farm, or hunting, or whatever...but not today. ie; things have changed.

Though, I have to admit that when I first saw this movie MANY years ago, I thought that scene was totally hot.

Also the apparent lopsided-ness of older/younger relationships is WAY different based on gender. Consider this
1) An older man and a 14 year old girl. The older man is most likely MUCH more physically powerful than a young girl, and can EASILY take advantage of her, despite her struggling. The girl doesn't have to be willing for the man to do this.
2) An older women can't force (standard) intercourse on a boy without him physically wanting to engage in it. Yes, she could make him do other things, but likely he has a much better chance at resisting than the situation with an older man and a young girl.
3) 14 year old boys and girls equally want to have sex. Let's face it. But biology dictates that the consequences are much different. Young boys won't get pregnant. Social standards ARE double standards, but there's a reason for it.

Anyway, that's my opinion anyway, which I'm sure will conflict with at least 50% of the population, if not more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaliforniaFilmGuy wrote:

"Space Cowboys" boasts multiple elderly male leads. That movie would never had been green-lighted as box office worthy with that many 50+ female leads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that that is the reality. Strangely, a recent film did have multiple 50+ female leads: "First Wives Club" Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn, and Diane Keaton were all 50 when the film was released and it made a ton of money. I'm a guy, but I found the film quite funny. Sadly, although all three actors wanted to do a sequel, the studios said it wouldn't succeed and that the original was just a fluke.