We have made a lot of social progress over the years. Sometimes progress has consisted of our becoming more tolerant, so that certain behaviors are no longer deemed immoral (e.g., premarital sex), while others have even been decriminalized (e.g., sodomy). In other areas, progress consists of our becoming less tolerant, so that certain behaviors are now deemed immoral (e.g., uttering racial slurs), while others have been criminalized (e.g., smoking in public buildings).
In addition to these changes in what we do or do not tolerate, our social progress has also consisted of our becoming more egalitarian. We believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law. In some cases, this egalitarian principle has led directly to changes in what we do or do not tolerate, as reflected in our laws prohibiting racial discrimination. And because we believe the sexes should also be treated equally, we have become less tolerant of any double standard in this area, which played a role in the shift in attitude regarding premarital sex during the 1960s, as well as in the passage of laws requiring equal pay for equal work. But the double standard persists, so that what we tolerate for one sex is regarded as intolerable for the other. And then it becomes a matter of deciding whether our attitude is wrong, or whether it is simply a realistic exception to the ideal of equality.
In the case of rape, we have expanded the scope of that term, so that what would not have counted as rape in the past is so regarded today. In particular, if a woman is passed-out drunk, and therefore cannot give her consent, then a man who takes advantage of that situation is guilty of rape. On this most people today agree. But then our egalitarianism kicks in, and we ask ourselves, “Would it be rape if the man were drunk and the woman took advantage of the situation?” We might betray ourselves with a moment’s hesitation, but we quickly recover and say, “Of course it would.”
But if you are a movie fanatic like me, then it is just a matter of time before The Way We Were (1973) pops into your head. In particular, there is a scene where Hubbell (Robert Redford) passes out drunk in Katie’s (Barbara Streisand) bed. She undresses and slips into bed beside him, and without realizing what he is doing, he has sex with her. How many of us would say, “Katie raped him, and she deserves to go to prison”? Not many, I’d wager.
One argument might be that even though Katie never tells Hubbell about the incident, he effectively gives his consent after the fact, since they fall in love and get married. But what if they had not? Suppose he never wanted to have sex with her? What if she told him about it later and he was outraged? Would that make the incident an act of rape, for which she should do hard time?
Perhaps our attitude toward The Way We Were has something to do with the way we were. There are three time periods that must be considered. First, there is the setting of the film. The scene in question takes place in the 1940s, just after World War II. Second, the movie was made in 1973. And third, there is today, along with the attitudes we presently have. In the 1940s, what Katie did would have been condemned—not because it was rape, but because she had premarital sex. In 1973, she was not condemned at all. So, is that why we do not think of it as rape when we watch the movie today, because it was not regarded as rape either in the period in which the movie was set or in which it was made?
We do sometimes make allowances like that, or, at least, some of us do. Whether I am watching the mildly racist movie Gone With the Wind (1939), or reading the extremely racist novel on which it was based, I put the racism in the context of when the story was set, and in the context of when the novel was written and the movie produced. But others regard the novel and movie from the perspective of today only, condemning them outright, context be damned. In any event, the novel could never be published today, and I don’t even think a movie version could be produced anymore, at least not without some major changes being made.
Could The Way We Were be made today? If it were, would the “rape” scene still be excused because it was set in the 1940s? I must admit that even if the movie were set in the 21st century, I would not condemn Katie. Am I sexist, or just realistic?
Another movie to be considered is The Summer of ’42 (1971). And we pretty much have the same three time periods, the 1940s, the early 1970s, and today. In this movie, a 15-year-old boy named Hermie (Gary Grimes) falls in love with a 22-year-old woman named Dorothy (Jennifer O’Neill). One evening, she gets word that her husband is dead, his plane having been shot down over France. She and Hermie have sex, and the next day she is gone.
I never really cared for this movie, but that is neither here nor there. The sense of it was that Dorothy, in her grief, turns to Hermie for affection, and that what happens is a deeply meaningful and positive experience for him. Now, I don’t know what the laws were in Massachusetts in 1942, but I am pretty sure that in most states, if a 22-year-old man had sex with a 15-year-old girl, he would be guilty of statutory rape, and if found out would be sent to prison, especially when the jury was told that he had sex with her on the very night he found out his wife had been killed. Should we condemn the man but excuse the woman? Did Dorothy deserve to go to prison for rape, just as a man would?
Once again, we have the possible excuse that there is consent after the fact, in this case, when the boy becomes a man. Does that matter? And if it does, what would our attitude toward Dorothy be if in the final scene, the adult Hermie expressed feelings of hostility? And once again we have to distinguish between the attitudes existing when the movie was set, when it was made, and the attitudes we have today.
Even today, the double standard lends itself to late-night humor. Typical is when Jay Leno was discussing a story about another female teacher that had sex with one of her male students, leading Leno to ask in exasperation, “Where were these teachers when I was in Junior High?” Humor aside, could The Summer of ’42 be made today? More to the point, could such a story be told in a contemporary setting? Probably not. But I wonder if that represents a genuine change in attitude, or merely a desire to appear more egalitarian than in fact we are. I, for one, would have a hard time condemning Dorothy, even if the story were set in the present. Am I sexist, or just realistic?