MovieChat Forums > Mysterious Skin (2005) Discussion > was 'the rape' truly rape? -Comments wel...

was 'the rape' truly rape? -Comments welcome

posted 17 years ago by missdestinyjade
110 replies | jump to latest

I was just thinking about "the rape", and was wondering if it can truly be considered rape. I mean if Neil wanted to press criminal charges could he? I'm not to sure. I mean the legal definition of rape(from the u.s department of justice website) is as follows:

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Now of course by this definition, it was indeed rape, seeing as though it was forced(we know that because we saw the entire situation/movie unfold.) We know about Neil's tragic childhood because we saw the movie, BUT WHAT IF this was a trial, and we were jurors? We weren't there, we didn't see what happened from beginning to end, all we know is that Neil claims to have been raped. From the definition above ^, it's an open and shut case. He forced himself onto Neil. But wait, the Defense will of course throw a wrench into that theory of "forced sexual intercourse". I mean look at the situation from the p.o.v. of the defense:

Neil is a prostitute who WILLINGLY got into the defendants vehicle, and went to the defendants home with ALL INTENTIONS of having sexual intercourse. While @ the defendant's home, Neil snorted cocaine WILLINGLY, and WILLINGLY removed his clothing and proceeded to have sexual relations/interaction with the defendant. Though the interaction was aggressive, up to this point there were NO objections on Neil's behalf. So okay fine, he did excuse himself to "use the restroom", where he had ample time to do what he had to do. The defendant came in (he didn't break in did he? i mean it is his house, bathroom and lock) and they proceeded to have AGGRESSIVE (but not forced) intercourse. Neil never yelled, asked for help, or resisted. There was no verbal threat to his life or the lives of his loved ones, he simply just went along with the situation.

Now of course the defense would have to come up with a logical explanation for beating neil with a shampoo bottle, but they can say that Neil was into that(people are into all kinds of *different* things).

Bottom line, i'm just saying that if this was real life and went to trial, the "rapist" would probably get off. (so to speak) I mean, i'm sure the defense would bring up Neil's life style and call him a drug abusing prostitute-hardly a model citizen or typical "victim", and Neil wouldn't stand a chance. Which is probably why in the film, he seems to bounce back so quickly. To have been "violated" just 24 hours earlier, he seemed fine, if not somewhat jovial when breaking into the coach's former house and swiping cookies.

I don't know, perhaps someone disagrees? I have no problem with hearing anyone's objections/opinions...

Ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente.
What the eyes do not see the heart does not feel.

[–] kellyoo 17 years ago

Of course it was rape ! He went to the bathroom to obviously get away from having sex with him, he breaks in the door, bangs his head onto the shower wall.. It's rape.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/lightson
SAVE FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS!

[–] wheresjoeysmovie-1 17 years ago

Few questions on a thread have a more obvious answer- YES- it was rape.

[–] richster_04 17 years ago

Didanyone else think the rapist was slightly fit?

[–] thecutiedisease 16 years ago

EWWWW!!!

<3Sairuh.

[–] zombiesushi 17 years ago

i didn't read this whole thread, just skimmed the first few pages, but yes, in answer to your question, it was rape, he said no, that there were things he didn't do, and just because he got into the mans car with the intentions of having sex doesn't mean he can't change his mind. which he did. as for the commenter who said he willingly snorted the coke, i alway got the impression that Neil wouldn't have liked the outcome if he hadn't. there was no mention of it but the threat was there.

women have the right to change their minds at any time, to sat no, and if the man keeps going once that happens thats rape, Neil said stop, that there were things he didn't do, and the man kept going, physically assaulting him and taking what he wanted anyways. if this had happened to a woman i doubt that it would even have been asked, wasn't there a movie that dealt with a situation somewhat like this? i think it had Jodie Foster in it...

I'll kiss you on the brain in the shadow of the train...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zombiesushi 17 years ago

Thank you, ive been trying to think of the name of it since this, i even saw a documentary on A&E about her but i didn't even think to listen for the name at the time (half asleep on a saturday morning, lol)

I'll kiss you on the brain in the shadow of the train...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bookworm205-1 17 years ago

I can't believe you're discussing this! If you were a hooker, would you well like it if the john hit you over the head with a *beep* shampoo bottle and forced you to have sex?
And, by the way, it's technically not prostitution. Did you see the guy give Neal any cash? Cause I didn't.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MandaMelle 16 years ago

We never really know if Neil got the money. The dude throw his ass out in the cold, but he could've stuffed some money in his pocket beforehand, you never know! I assume that he didn't though

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Enchanted-Rain 16 years ago

Yes, it was rape. Neil had "limits" and he told the guy there were things he didn't do and I believe anal sex was one of them.

It seemed implied that the only act Neil performed and had performed on him is oral sex by that statement and his reaction to the other young gay guy when he first gets to New York (he's surprised when the guy asks him to perform anal sex, and obliges).

I don't care if you are a prostitute or not, when a man or woman says no, No means NO.

[–] acerock1999 14 years ago

I think when he said that there were some things he didn't do, he wasn't necessarily telling the truth. There were just some things he didn't want to do with THAT guy. And to answer the thread topic - It might be difficult to prove in court, but YES, it was rape by every possible definition of the word. I don't see how there could be any confusion on the subject.

[–] combatreview 16 years ago

Unfortunately, most rapists escape conviction regardless of whether the victim is male or female, prostitute or not. In the case of a prostitute it's even less likely that it would even be reported much less prosecuted, due to the assumption that prostitutes cannot be raped or that they in some way are to blame for the assault. So the OP is correct that this incident wouldn't get far in terms of prosecution, but that doesn't mean that it's ambiguous whether or not Neil was raped. That's unambivalent.

[–] lockar 16 years ago

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

by - combatreview

Unfortunately, most rapists escape conviction regardless of whether the victim is male or female, prostitute or not. In the case of a prostitute it's even less likely that it would even be reported much less prosecuted, due to the assumption that prostitutes cannot be raped or that they in some way are to blame for the assault. So the OP is correct that this incident wouldn't get far in terms of prosecution, but that doesn't mean that it's ambiguous whether or not Neil was raped. That's unambivalent.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

But Neil never asked for any money nor was it said. But I still see that it would be a hard case to prove and get a convection. Neil should have got a clue when the guy said "No talking.". That would throw a red flag there. I did like that Neil checked where they the where before going into the guys place.

This is/was rape, the guy force him self on Neil and hit him on the head with the shampoo bottle.

-Lockar

[–] digiscript34 16 years ago

Undoubtedly that was rape, esp since Niel said to the guy there were certain things he wasn't into, add to that the 'rapist' caused Niel to nearly bleed to death.

But then rewind to the encounter with the coach, that was rape too, in that it was all about what the coach was after and not at all about repect for the boy, otherwise we would've seen the boy AND the coach engaging without anyone's need to coax, con or justify something one-another wants to do.

There was an element of trust/mistrust about the relationship. The boy felt obligated to trust his coach by protocol because his coach is a grownup and was an authoritative figure, yet the boy remained uncomfortable with the coach and the coach had to get to the boy my means of grooming the situation and building up to the moment, all with no true respect to the boy.

In a relationship that seems consentual it's easy for one or the other to cross a line and violate the other in some way, thus rendering the relationship to become forced, then it becomes rape.

[–] advice31765 15 years ago

Sex with a child is always rape because of the child's age. A child cannot consent to sex with an adult so it is statutory rape.

[–] mad_men 16 years ago

I know this thread is old, but I'm really surprised by the "touchy" responses, nobody even read what you wrote at all... nobody understood or tried to understand anything you said. I completely agree with you, you didn't say it wasn't rape you just said a court most probably wouldn't see it as rape and it's the truth.

[–] dolphins25412 15 years ago

Whether a court would find him guilty is irrelevant and really is a matter of sheer guessing. I could kill someone in cold blood, but if the prosecutor finds me not-guilty that doesn't mean I didn't murder someone. I'm not sure a court would find the guy guilty, but if they saw the same footage we saw, it would indeed be rape!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 15 years ago

I'm not sure how it can be any more rape than this. This is the very definition of rape. Why are we even debating it?

[–] Camiyiya 15 years ago

u are right....it doesnt matter if u can prove it or not, it was rape indeed...anyway i think if u really want to u can prove it...

-wounds
-semen
-probably more big wounds down there that an expert could consider them caused by a rape.
-being a minor
-the rapist probably had been doing that sort of things several times....

Neil could have won at court....

Appy-polly-loggies