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.

[–] Frosted-Flame 13 years ago

A simple business transaction does not trump basic human rights. If Neil had known what he was getting into he probably wouldn't have done it. The victim's nativity or stupidity (for lack of better words) should never be used as an excuse to rape someone. Granted he could have done things differently, but his Human Rights are not rescinded because of those actions. One never forfeits their right to say no

This Show Was A Lot Funnier Before Kirstie Alley Ate Shelly Long

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

I find it somewhat discomforting that people keep asking on these boards whether something depicted can be regarded as rape when it so clearly is. The same questions pop up on the "Kids" and "Bully" boards (those who have seen these films will know what I am talking about).

He didn't want to be *beep* in the a*se, yet he was so how can that not be rape?

[–] UnHinged89 13 years ago

I find it somewhat discomforting that people keep asking on these boards whether something depicted can be regarded as rape when it so clearly is.

The OP was asking if the incident would be perceived as rape in the COURT OF LAW.

Neil was of legal age, a prostitute, and willingly entered the defendants home. After he got out of the defendants car, Neil could have easily sprinted for the subway, which - if you were paying attention to the film - was just a few yards away. He also willingly snorted the crack that he was asked to sniff. Twice. What happened to Neil was awful, yes - But in the court system, proceedings are ruled by cold, hard facts and facts only, not by a person's emotions or personal moral values. If that were the case, people would be suing their ex-wifes/husbands left and right and winning millions just for "emotional distress".

I'm sorry, but under the circumstances, if Neil walked into court looking for a lawsuit, his case would get thrown out in a matter of seconds. Period.

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

There are two issues here.

The first issue is whether what happened to Neil was rape. The answer is yes. He clearly did not consent to anal sex.

The second issue is whether Neil could have proven in a court of law that he was raped. This would depend on the evidence. As he was a prostitute who voluntarily entered the "defendant's" flat, it is likely that the absence of consent would have been difficult to prove. Of course, we don't know whether the "defendant" had previous convictions for similar sexual assaults. Neil's injuries would also have been taken into account to suggest the use of force.

We had the advantage of seeing what happened to Neil. A court would not have been in that position (unless the "defendant" had had CCTV cameras installed). Chances are, therefore, that a court would have probably found it difficult to convict the "defendant" beyond reasonable doubt. That does not detract from the fact that Neil was, indeed, raped.

On a sidenote, I don't think anyone here suggested the discussion relates to a civil case. In a criminal case, there are no million dollar payouts for "emotional distress" or otherwise. There are, however, cases of marital rape in both criminal and civil courts. These cases are similarly difficult to prove but some of them succeed.

[–] UnHinged89 13 years ago

The first issue is whether what happened to Neil was rape. The answer is yes.

Not a fact. Your opinion is questionable and controversial at best.

He clearly did not consent to anal sex.

He clearly didn't make any vocal objections to it either, other than the "Wait, there are some things that I don't do" that he muttered under his breath. Not once did he say "Stop" or "You're going too far", You're hurting me" or "I want to leave". He didn't scream to alert any neighbors, nor did he try to put up a fight.

Neil's injuries would also have been taken into account to suggest the use of force.

Nope. An easy rebuttal to this was that the defendant was into hardcore sadomasochism (BDSM) and sought out the plaintiff, a prostitute to carry out his wishes, therefore, making the case even more moot and prone to dismissal.

Now let's look at another scenario. Neil gets out of the car when they arrive at Brighton Beach and starts hauling ass toward the subway. The defendant chases him, catches him, and drags Neil into the apartment against his will. Now, we've got a solid rape case.

Objections?

[–] Steve_Smith54 13 years ago

Regardless of Neil's past, forced sex is rape, period.

[–] UnHinged89 13 years ago

He wasn't forced. You people just don't understand the meaning of personal responsibility, do you? The guy had sex with strangers for a living for christ's sake. He caught crabs earlier in the film which means he was being a fool and not staying protected. If common sense didn't tell him he wouldn't eventually end up in a violent situation, that's on him. It's time to stop giving people like Neil an endless amount of excuses. -__-

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

The issue is very simple: At that point in time, did he consent to what happened? Or to put it another way: Are we absolutely convinced that, in that moment, had he been asked whether he would be fine to be brutally penetrated from behind, he would have freely said "yes"?

If the answer to both questions is no, then what happened to him was rape.

The fact that he was working as a prostitute and voluntarily put himself in dangerous situations has nothing to do with that analysis.

I can understand that many non-lawyers may have difficulties understanding that a prostitute or a wife can become victims of rape. It is also true that in these cases the conviction rate is considerably lower than in the "dark-alley-lone-woman-attacked" scenario. But, as another poster has pointed out above, forced sex is rape.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HipsterBro 13 years ago

Yes it was.

Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion

[–] burningroseandthistle 13 years ago

I don't get this question. Just 'cause someone is a prostitute and willing to have sex with strangers for money doesn't make it any less rape. Even if someone TOLD you they were going to rape you and you followed them into a room, you would still have been raped. The legal definition of rape has nothing to do with moralism, it's just about consent.

Someday you will name me, then gently place those burning holy roses in my hair.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dogagas 13 years ago

He explicitly said there was somethings he did not do, and hid out in the bathroom. He was then hit on the head with a blunt object (assault), and repeatedly beaten with a shampoo bottle (battery). All the while, he was sexually used in a way he had not consented to. He did not agree to that form of intercourse, it was forced on him. Knowing what we know, it was rape. A jury might not agree though, on account of Neil being a prostitute.

[–] snoho 13 years ago

It's prostitution brutality.
There's a reason why the very act itself is so frowned on and why it's NEVER depicted as something positive. It's degrading, cheap and dangerous.
You can whine about it all you like but desperation or not if you get into a stranger's vehicle and give yourself to them as an object then you are giving the opportunity for this to happen. People will sympathise yes but no jury would take this case seriously especially considering prostitution is illegal. The best charges you could get would be assault. Again they make films like these to DISCOURAGE you from hitting the streets to make a few bucks not for you to sit and have a rant about how unfair and cruel the big world is. Look after yourself god damn it!

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 13 years ago

Rape by definition is a sex act someone is forced to do against their will. That they may have been willing to do other sex acts doesn't somehow make sex acts they didn't want to do, but were forced to do, not rape.

Conform or be cast out

[–] greatkatherine 13 years ago

It was truly rape by the time the guy busted into the bathroom. Youhave to be willing every moment for it not to be rape. If in one second he excused himself and the guy then pounced on him, that was forcible.