Allen Covert is an old friend of Adam Sandler’s, appears in many of his movies (I loved him in “The Wedding Singer”) and co-produces “That’s My Boy,” Sandler’s latest. Covert is also an outspoken conservative and “family values” promoter. So how he or Sandler thought this was a great idea makes zero sense to me.
Sandler plays a rape victim whose rapist became pregnant with a son he now reconnects with, first for cynical and later sentimental reasons. It’s that twist, of course, Sandler’s tender shtick, that supposedly excuses this abominable idea. And I’m sure most will see a harmless plot driven by a snarky, devil-may-care 13 year-old who impregnates his sexy teacher.
It isn’t. It’s child rape.
But the victim is a boy and the abuser an attractive, white woman, so who cares? Bring up the crimes of Mary Kay Letourneau or Debra LaFave, and you’ll likely get eye-rolling, then air quotes around the word “crimes.” Their victims, many believe, are really the luckiest boys on earth, fast-tracked James Bond’s with the world on a string. The 80’s saw a few awful movies with similar themes. But to my memory, the boys were around 16. Sandler’s character is 13. Older boys can and do suffer just as much from rape by women. But younger ones almost always fare far worse.
Vili Fualaau, a victim I wouldn’t name except that he’s living his life story publicly, was 13 when he was first raped by Letourneau, a relentless predator who never stopped hunting him. He is now a 26 year-old high school dropout, convicted of DUI, and a survivor of a suicide attempt. The only success he seems to have found is in capitalizing on his victimization (with Letourneau) at promoted events in bars for a few bucks.
The victim of LaFave, according to the testimony of his sister, remains in psychiatric care still devastated from the rape he endured. LaFave was released years early from probation by a judge who joked with her while compromising both the punishment and treatment she earned when she destroyed the boy she victimized.
What we call “compliant” victims of child sexual abuse are remarkably common, especially in adolescence. The older the child, the more society blames the child for at least knowing the score, if not outright luring or asking for the abuse. Predators know and rely on this. Female “tweens” and teens are certainly judged, shunned and blamed for their own victimization by adult males, as almost all adult victims are. But a boy, unless the perpetrator is a male, must celebrate his abuse, and at the expense of far more than just looking like some mysteriously disgruntled lottery winner.
Sandler’s character as a boy is shown smirking and proudly high-fiving classmates when his rapist appears in court pregnant. The message sent to boys are who are similarly victimized is clear: You’d better react the same way, or you’re not a man. You’re a loser, and the affections of a “real woman” were wasted on you. But alas, in reality when guilt, shame, fear and confusion surface due to a clearly pathological relationship, the boy is utterly alone. No one- absolutely no one- will understand if he dares voice any disturbance. Instead they’ll smirk. They’ll joke about how it should have been them. They’ll wonder aloud what else isn’t quite right with him. And so on.
I am highly unpopular, generally, with men’s rights groups familiar with me. But this is one area where I find some common ground with them. Adolescent female victims of men are commonly mistreated and unfairly blamed when they report. But boys victimized by women had better not report at all. Or else. But if the abuse is discovered and the woman prosecuted, she is usually under-punished if at all.
The fact that Sandler’s adult character is a failure could presumably be called instructive, and act in defense of trivializing something tragic and evil. But that’s a sorry argument. Clear enough from the trailer is that the character, while a loveable loser, is still happy-go-lucky and serendipitous, not alone, desperate and suffering. Child rape as humor promotes nothing redeeming, despite the Sandler soft-touch. It’s garishly misplaced as such.
It’s about time someone, beyond a mothers group, was critical of female rapists. I had occasion to discuss this with a father of 2 and grandfather of 6- boys and girls, when a clip of this trial flashed on the news. He said something mocking about sleeping with a pretty older woman and smirked. I asked him if he could imagine a male or female teacher that he especially admired or liked telling him to engage in this behavior. A light went on. He said he had never condsidered it like that. I’m sorry that both female & male rape survivors endure victim blaming and the predators do not pay for their crimes.
Roger,
Over here at MOCSA we will recently wrote a post about this film at our Man Up! blog, http://www.kcmanup.org. You can find the post here: http://kcmanup.org/2012/05/thats-my-boy/
You make some excellent points, particularly about the way victims are judged by society.
I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts about the film and maybe what it means to our culture at large when rape is used as a back drop for a comedy. One could reasonably make the same film, without the child rape premise, so why even go there ? Great post and thanks for the work that you do and your support for our agency as well.
Another great blog, Rog. SO important to talk about this. My heart goes out to any young man/child who has endured this type of humiliation. The act itself is a violation, but the pain a person must feel when their body betrays what their mind wants must be unbearable.
Thank you for this insightful, empathetic and heroic post. You speak the truth that I have been privy to in my work as president of Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation (S.E.S.A.M.E.).
The harm to male victims reads like a veteran’s of war account. In a study of male-on-male vs female-on-male sexual abuse, the findings show that male victims of female offenders suffer more severe psychological trauma, they are more likely to drop out of school, more likely to anesthetize with alcohol/drugs, more likely to attempt suicide and complete suicide, more likely to become physically violent as adults and more likely to become sexually violent as adults. Because male victims are less likely to be believed, they rarely report their abuse.
Shame on Adam Sandler and his cohorts for thinking this mockery of child rape is remotely funny.
Thanks for your comment, Terri. The only thing I would challenge you on is your assertion that males sexually abused by women are more likely to become sexually violent as adults. If there is a correlation you’ve seen, I’d like to see it, and I’ll bet I could pick it apart logically. In many people’s minds, there is a sense that sexual victimization of children has a “vampire effect” that often turns the victim into a future predator or violent person. This is not only inaccurate but remarkably unfair and cruel to the victims, who are already blaming themselves and dealing with many other forms of trauma due to their abuse.
What we often see are predators claiming that they were abused as children, either by men or women. Over 90% of sex offenders will claim they themselves were perpetrated upon. But if those predators are even threatened with a polygraph exam, that self-reporting goes way down, like toward 60% (see my friend and colleague Anna Salter’s work on this subject at http://www.annasalter.com. Why do predators falsely claim past victimization? Because it gets them sympathy from sentencing judges and juries, and also other players in the system such as parole officers, etc. But many if not most people take them at their word when they claim they were abused. This is because most people have a hard time accepting that the urge to commit sexual violence just emerges in a person sometime (usually) in adolescence. Yet this is usually the truth. No one knows where the urge to hurt children comes from. But we know it doesn’t come from being victimized. The vast majority of victims become extra vigilant as adults and show greater concern toward the safety of children around them.
You are of course correct that victimization can create a plethora of other pathologies in victims who are given proper treatment or a good response if and when they report (most do not). Certainly victims grow up and have the problems you describe. They are most definitely at a higher risk to be victimized later in life, for instance. And certainly they can make choices due to their victimization that puts them at greater risk for all kinds of harm later in life. But I do not believe that they are more likely to harm others sexually.
Again, thanks for your comment and for joining the conversation. Please come by again.
Thanks, Beth. You’re correct- victims feel terrible guilt and shame when their bodies simply do what they were designed to do. It adds deeply to the tragedy of the crime.
“What we often see are predators claiming that they were abused as children, either by men or women. Over 90% of sex offenders will claim they themselves were perpetrated upon. But if those predators are even threatened with a polygraph exam, that self-reporting goes way down, like toward 60% (see my friend and colleague Anna Salter’s work on this subject at http://www.annasalter.com.”
So, if a predator recants at the request of a polygraph, then this is reliable to show that the report of victimization is false?
But, if an accuser recants at the request of a polygraph, then this is not reliable to show that the report of victimization is false?
Somewhat of a paradox, Roger?
I happen to think that if a person recants when confronted with the possibility that their lie could be exposed by a polygraph, then there is a pretty good chance it did not happen, regardless of whether it is a predator or accuser.
So, today I agree with you. I just wish you would apply the same logic to accusers per our past discussions discussing Kanin’s study.
Hello, Counselor, and thanks for stopping by as always-
My issue with what you’re implying is that I believe you’re comparing apples to oranges. Sexual predators who claim past abuse- particularly when participating in a presentence investigation, or applying for a particular program, or parole, leniency, etc, clearly have and perceive an incentive to falsify claims of past abuse. And even better for them, their ‘accounts’ need not be particularly detailed or in any way traceable. Offenders who have been convicted and are facing sentencing or participating in treatment have a clear motive to fabricate where past abuse is concerned- the also have an extremely easy way to do so that involves (if they prefer) identifying no one by name and just as many details as they wish in order to get what they want, which is sympathy. Of course there are offenders who were abused themselves. But for those who weren’t and wish to claim they were, it’s not a difficult thing to come up with and it offers at least the potential of an obvious reward for doing so.
Contrast this to complainants asked to undergo lie detector tests by prosecutors or detectives, and you have a much different situation. Victims who have have been asked to endure lie detector tests, in most cases, have no motive to fabricate. They are also being asked to provide detailed accounts, usually involving a known suspect.
I’m not claiming- nor would I ever- that a false allegation of rape could not be exposed by the threat of a polygraph. I’m sure that could happen and perhaps it has. But I do not think, given the lack of incentive that almost always exists with regard to reporting sexual violence falsely, that lie detector tests are necessary, reliable, or (if they are refused the victim stops cooperating as a result) indicative of a false complaint. Rather, I find it to be needless bullying on the part of investigators who have either warped and uninformed views, or some other agenda at work.