MovieChat Forums > Mallrats (1995) Discussion > One thing that has always intrigued me.....

One thing that has always intrigued me...

posted 15 years ago by vanhalenania07
11 replies | jump to latest

... is when Tricia Jones says her parents are ok with her having sex with dozens of men in order to research a book she's writing.

How the HELL can they be ok with their FIFTEEN year old daughter having sex with dozens of older men?? Jesus CHRIST, haven't they thought of the possible consequences?? as I'm writing this, I'm beginning think neither has Tricia. What if she was raped, beaten or even murdered for that matter?

Also, how can her book company be ok with having an underage minor write a book on the subject of the male sex drive? Aren't they aware of the possible LEGAL ramifications of distributing such a book? I mean, come on, this situation mirrors that of former pron star Traci Lords.

Even IF she can somehow avoid the attention of the law, she actually said that she VIDEO TAPED each sexual encnounter?!! WHY?? is she planning on getting each man thrown in jail??

Persoanlly, I find the whole thing VERY seedy and suspicious. Fair enough, she DOES ask each man she sleeps with if she can record they're whole sorry escapade, BUT, she 'neglects' to even inform them of her age!

What does everyone else think?

Peace!

[–] Mark_Graisons_Moustache 15 years ago

Well in the extended version she says they're not gonna publish it until she's 18 "To avoid the moral and legal entanglements."

As for the parents, I guess they were just very open minded.

"We would have come earlier, but your husband wasn't dead then."

[–] njkuvaas 15 years ago

This is exactly what makes it funny. It's outrageous for a 15 year old girl to have sex with a bunch of guys as research for a book. It's even more ridiculous for her parents to sign off on it. Then, for a publisher to give her an advance much less okay the book, it adds another layer of ridiculousness. It also adds to the plot because they use the tape to get Shannon in trouble.

[–] ttrek-1 14 years ago

What I found most curious is that she's committing a crime. It doesn't matter if they wait until she's 18. She was still underage when she committed the crimes and in reality would still get in trouble for them.

Look at Roman Polanski. He had sex with a 13 year old decades ago. And even though that girl has long since been a legal adult, he still gets in trouble.

It never sat right with me. I felt that the fact there is no legal ramifications for Tricia at all, in spite of the fact she instigated, and knowingly FORCED men to be criminals by lying about her age (it is likely that had they known she was underage, they would have told her to bugger off).

So why, why, why is an underage girl, who knowingly commits sex crimes for her own gain, allowed to even walk the streets? Surely she would have to testify against Shannon, thereby admitting that the sex was consensual and entirely a product of her lying.

How would Shannon not walk, or at least not get off with a light sentence? I understand he essentially signed his own sentence by believing she was 35... no one could mistake that. At the very least he could claim she said she was in her 20's.

In fact... she gets the men she sleeps with to sign a contract. Likely this states her age as being older than she is. Legally speaking, this contract is void as she cannot legally even draw one up.

And her tapes could be considered child pornography. Which is yet another crime of which she CAN and would likely (in real life definitely would have been) have been convicted of.

I'm sorry. I just think she should have been jailed for a long time for her deeds. Whether her goal was vindictive or not is beside the point. By entering in sexual relations with ANYONE she is a criminal. And criminals should be subject to the full force of the law as per their ages.

Flynn 24

[–] s_c47 14 years ago

I think you are missing the point. Go back and read njkuvaas's post again. Try to fucussa this time.

Para tiempo means nada nunca.

[–] Director-21 14 years ago

What I found most curious is that she's committing a crime. It doesn't matter if they wait until she's 18. She was still underage when she committed the crimes and in reality would still get in trouble for them.

According to our legal system she didn't commit a crime. Misrepresenting yourself as being of legal age isn't a crime when sex in concerned.

Traci Lords had a state issued ID saying that she was of age when she had her porn career. She got the ID by using a friend/cousin/someone's birth certificate to get an actual state ID that she used to appear in porn movies when she was 15-17 years old. She was never charged with a crime and the porn producers who she conned had to lawyer up in order to not end up in jail themselves, because the government wanted to charge them with something.

Rob Lowe met two underage girls in a bar that one allegedly had to be 21 in order to get into. After going home with them and having a threesome he was the one who was charged with a crime even though they were the ones who lied about their ages in the situation.

[–] trash_wallyworld 13 years ago

Oh please? Tell me you wouldn't bop her?

[–] saralynn1357 12 years ago

Interesting point... Considering that I was under 15 when I first saw this film, I was never really disturbed by it. She was more or less an adult in my eyes.

But... Being 29 now... I think if I saw this movie for the first time I would be somewhat repulsed by it, because I see 15 year-olds basically as children (no, not the same as I view a 10-year old or anything, but in the sense that they are still very young and very vulnerable.)

Anyway yes, the whole thing is preposterous, and so far out there so as not to be in the least bit realistic. And that's the comedy of it -- she talks about it as though it's no big deal, and poor T.S. is just having a "wtf" moment... Similar to the third nipple lady... things that are practically impossible happen and are talked about nonchalantly, and it's the contrast that makes it funny.

------

Find me on Pottermore! WitchSilver93 here :)

[–] Bilwick1 12 years ago

In the rare "Director's Cut (West Virginia Edition)" we learn that her dad was her first subject, with her mom videotaping. They were all big Robert Heinlein fans.

[–] fliphop 12 years ago

bilwick: are you serious about the Heinlein thing?

the way the tone of the movie is, its just so *beep* bizarre. i mean what if they did make her 10 like the other posters talked about above? it would be *beep* vomit inducing, just *beep* wrong on every *beep* level.

its *beep* up. i mean its just so disgusting and gross. but the way the movie is, it just doesnt 'get to' the viewer that they would be making fun of something like heinlein or the way that corporations (publishers) turn a blind eye to the abuse of minors. it plays in the movie as almost simply quirky instead of *beep* gross. there is no cutaway to a shot of, say, TS throwing up or whatever.

its kind of a trick they play on your mind. its not really welcome either.

[–] TheFatDruidofNacyl 12 years ago

I suspect at least in the laws in that universe she would not get in trouble because she was the minor and the adults were committing the crime. I also think that because she was going to write a book about what happened to her and they were not going to actually use the video tapes the book distributors were legally in the clear.

Come visit my blackrosecastle.com
stephentheblackroseenterprises.com

[–] Dragon000 11 years ago

I think it is very much meant to be unbelievable and outrageous, like many of the situations in Kevin Smith's movies. Meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

DRAGON¸.•´¸.•*´¨SWAK¸.•´¸