Crossing the Rubicon: Women with underage boys is OK!

Hannah Fidel has a new movie coming out. The “boundary breaking film maker”, in her interview with Elle,  tackles a subject that is sure to titillate the same way that the still relevant Fifty Shades of Grey titillated, but with a twist. In this film the male is barely of legal age. The movie is Called “A Teacher”, because thats what the female protagonist is.

It just so happens that this love affair is between a teacher and her student.

All it takes is a little rationalization, and the ability to, as we already know, confuse the tingles with love. To get started in the right frame of mind you have to be down with the struggle of young women, what with all the insecurities and self esteem issues that so plague women these days.

Diana, a young single teacher, struggles with family issues and loneliness, while her student, Eric is a mature 18.

Diana, poor dear, is single, lonely, and has some “family issues”. Victim. The student is a “mature 18”. Perpetrator.

In the same way we have Eat Pray Love and those movies that sell the divorce fantasy, and we have every manner of rationale for promiscuity among consenting adults but with the built in excuses we must accept for the carousel riders, we are sold a particular narrative about boys and women, even women in positions of authority over them. If that is not enough to convince the reader of the primacy of the tingle and the woman’s helplessness to resist it, we find specific personal commentary by Ms. Fidel to help us understand.

The interviewer asks her is she or her friends struggled with lust for their teachers. She answers that and turns it back to the dynamic present in the movie where the student is a male.

Fidell says of her teachers, “I didn’t, but friends of mine did. They didn’t have, to my knowledge, affairs with them, but they definitely did [lust after them]”

then goes back to the movie:

So, in a way, I look at what the character of Diana [the teacher who is having an affair with Eric, a student in her AP English Literature class] is doing, trying to capture the youthfulness that Eric seems so full of, and at the same time, he is relatively mature in some ways, too

Again, the boy is mature. But the interviewer takes it further when she says:

he seems to be really in control and dominant, which makes it easier to have sympathy for Diana.

In case sympathy based on his dominance isn’t enough, Fidell plays the judging card and adds:

The main goal was how to not judge her, because I’ve certainly been in situations that were regrettable, that I shouldn’t have been in. I think the relationship came out of kind of a desperate loneliness that Diana felt.

The interviewer asked Fidell about Mary Kay Letourneau and whether or not that case had any influence on the writing and Fidell waves that away:

Mary Kay Letourneau… she really loved the guy

But….I thought this movie was a love story….

Fidell admits that she can see how this kind of thing could happen and because of that, well, the women are victims too doggonit:

these women could potentially be victims themselves, in certain ways. It still crossed the line, don’t get me wrong, but I personally can sympathize with losing yourself in someone,

She goes on to share an anecdote that actually did inform the movie where she had found herself drawn to a high school boy when she was a young woman:

He walked in, and I just realized I was super-attracted to him and, like, ‘Oh my god, that guy is hot! [  ]

And then I got thinking [about what he represented] for me at that moment. “No, he doesn’t necessarily have to pay bills, or do his taxes himself and worry about rent…,” none of those issues. He’s living a beautiful, carefree life, and I was confused about whether I was physically attracted to him or attracted to that.

Hello, and welcome to hamster exhibit 1. She has started an interview with the fact that the story is a love affair. She goes on to explain that the woman was vulnerable, the male was a dominant mature 18 year old, and how with all that in mind you just cannot blame the woman. She writes off one of the most famous cases like this based on the fact that the woman was on love. Then finally she grants us a peak into a woman’s mind.

She was tingling so hard she could mix drinks just by holding them. But, she was confused. It wasn’t any kind of lust. She did NOT have a rogering against a tree in mind. Nope, the kid had never filed a tax return and didn’t have a signed lease. Damn, I get it. Wait….those things apply to kids of any age don’t they? See that? She has set up a perfect rationale, no, not just a rationale, but an aura of sympathy for every woman who has ever dug her finger nails into a strong underage well muscled back.

Little or nothing more is needed to justify dipping juuuuuust below 18 years old. Then below that. Etc. Now, rewrite the interview with the genders reversed and see how it reads.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Crossing the Rubicon: Women with underage boys is OK!

  1. She was tingling so hard she could mix drinks just by holding them.

    Another classic one liner, LOL.

    Now, rewrite the interview with the genders reversed and see how it reads.

    We all know exactly how it would read: “Somebody call the cops!”

  2. Feminine imperative served again. Female sexual desire is good, pure, noble, beneficial, and a result of emotional love.

    Male sexual desire is predatory, degenerate, evil, lustful, violent, and criminal.

  3. It’s all here:

    — Don’t judge!
    — She was in love
    –She was desperate and lonely
    — He was dominant and in control (read: HE, not she, is the perpetrator. SHE, not he, is the victim. HE must have done something to trick her into it)
    — She has family issues (SHE’s the victim and not really responsible for her actions). He is a “mature” 18 (HE has full moral agency and responsibility for his decision to enter into a sexual relationship with his teacher) Meaning, she did nothing wrong; and if this is a “bad” or “inappropriate” relationship, it is only so because of HIS conduct, not hers.

  4. I do not know this woman. I do not know of this film beyond this interview. But I will predict that if it has half decent production value, and reasonable actors and is distributed more than narrowly, it will be the next thing (the DVD) that comes with an included sex toy coupon (think 50 Shades)

    When you read the interview, notice how she practically breaths heavy when describing the young Texan actor and his aftershave. If this woman didn’t grab some alone time during this whole process I will feed myself to a wood chipper.

  5. But I will predict that if it has half decent production value, and reasonable actors and is distributed more than narrowly, it will be the next thing (the DVD) that comes with an included sex toy coupon (think 50 Shades)

    I agree. Films that celebrate female sexual degeneracy seem to do remarkably well. And the sad reality is that there are no small number of church women who will indulge in the fantasy as well.

    We’re pretty strict around here about what we watch. Well, not when it comes to violence, but prurient stuff, we try to avoid.

    I will never see this movie. I hope it makes less than they pay to make it.

  6. Empath:
    There are two dynamics going on with this story: both of which lead back to the fact that Age of Consent laws are simply a feminist protection racket. The first is that, as long as women control sexuality, AOC laws with younger men shouldn’t matter. The second is that younger women have to be ‘protected’ from predatory men, so AOC laws are necessary. Both positions are contradictory of course (like most of feminism) because controlling male sexuality is the ulterior motive for both; which feminists will never admit to.

  7. Great post Empath.

    One small quibble:

    All it takes is a little rationalization, and the ability to, as we already know, confuse the tingles with love.

    I’m not sure there is really a meaningful distinction here. It is taken as fundamental in our culture that romantic love is purer, better, than sexual attraction. I don’t see this kind of distinction in the Bible. The Song of Songs doesn’t seem to make such a distinction, nor does the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7. In fact with the latter if you had to cleave the two he would then clearly be referring to sexual attraction and not romantic love when he said to marry if you burn with passion. But again, I don’t think he was making such a distinction.

    I agree that she is rationalizing her sin under the banner of “twoo wuv”, but I don’t think the problem is she is mistaking “counterfeit” romantic love for the real deal. I’m happy to stipulate that she felt romantic love, the authentic 100% real deal. The problem in my view comes with our tendency to ascribe “true” romantic love with any moral force whatsoever.

  8. One small quibble

    One small quibble for Dalrock, one good catch for the me and the readers here. It got me re-thinking.

    First, generally I agree with what you said in the first part, and with the Biblical inferences and references, and intent therein regarding sex and love. We must read emotional language in the Bible very carefully lest, for example, we grow frustrated at ourselves even as we are told to “love” God and other people. Clearly no sex involved there, but if we could just get people to think a little more about what loving God and other people means than the pedestrian way it is taken.
    Side tangent.

    This

    The problem in my view comes with our tendency to ascribe “true” romantic love with any moral force whatsoever.

    I agree with completely and never intended to ascribe same. Maybe thats where the quibble comes in.

    Keep in mind I was very generally describing her thoughts (my opinions of course). She called a sexual relationship a love affair, then she describes it as pure tingles, then later uses love again, but there actually meaning it in this ill defined cultural way that is used to rationalize things.

    Regardless the sort of love, real, faux, temporary, whatever, its a get out of a moral conundrum free card for women. That’s all I was attempting to say.

    Thanks for poppin in

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s