No one has addressed this point yet, and I’m curious to see the answer. Was a juvenile victim of a homosexual child molester himself considered a criminal in those days?
I think the implication was that Jimmy willingly “Paid” Ralph back for his gifts. It may have been unintentional, but it further reinforces the hatred of “The Homosexual.” Get caught doing it and YOU will be charged too! That’s right, now YOU’RE a filthy queer! Go put on a dress, nancy-boy.
Talk about blaming the victim. Imagine some kid getting blackmailed or otherwise non-violently forced into sex and then being labelled as a queer because of it. Time to move out of that town.
It was a time when rape victims were routinely accused of “asking for it.” Why were you walking in that part of town? You were wearing a tight blouse. You weren’t really hurt.
As this is a scare-tactic film, it’s implied that he might have been, but I don’t see how he could have been charged with anything other than delinquency. Maybe the cops imposed a curfew on him – straight home after school for you, young man. No basketball and definitely no fishing.
Watching this now–struck by one thing. Were kids/parents watching this video supposed to shocked by the fact that the man turns out to be a predator? I know in this day and age, the idea of a kid or teen getting a ride home from a man who then says he’ll see him again later skeeves me out terribly, and automatically makes me think of molesters. Did people think about that kind of stuff without being prompted by scare tactic films, though?
Also seems interesting that the film is focusing on how it’s bad for boys to get picked up this way. I guess these days my mind goes more definitely to the fact that for a female, it seems even more dangerous.
Er…Jerry never thought to warn Denny NOT go get in the car in the first place?
Hi, I’m Troy McClure, you may remember me from such anti-gay warning films as “Boys Beware” and “Don’t Put that in Your Mouth, You Don’t Knew Where It’s Been”
Whenver I see these old films I can’t help but hear Phil Hartmann. It has become automatically engrained.
I don’t think the serious stranger-danger stuff began until the 70s, though. Before that, hitchhiking actually was a fairly common activity (for males, anyway), and there was no assumption of malice on the part of either the hitchhiker or the driver.
The unfortunate thing about the film (other than the nasty slurs against gay folk) is that, if the patterns were the same then as now, it was much more likely that “Uncle Mike” or “Scoutmaster McCarthy” or “Father Pete” posed a greater danger to the kid than any stranger in a car.
I remember being told to “never take candy or a ride from a stranger.” Like the above posts mention, nobody warned us against our relatives, teachers, youth leaders, etc.
This was the time, if I recall correctly, that a minor could be charged with ‘Being in Danger of leading a dissolute life’. If convicted one could end up in the care of the county or state.
Wow, if you don’t read this sentence really carefully…
No, it certianly didn’t end then.
Honestly, the ONLY thing different between then and now is the homosexual angle. If anything, as some people said, we’re worse today.
Btw, the homosexual angle does make some sense, because it seems a disproportionate number of adult-child relationships are between two males. I don’t think it’s homosexuality per se, but it’s easier and more comfortable and more ‘moral’ and cetera to get a boy to become sexual. That’s why the Greeks didn’t fuck little girls. That’s why there’s a NAMBLA but not a NAMGLA. If we’re not thinking of such a pattern these days (eg, To Catch a Predator mostly features girls) it’s probably because we’d like to keep our irrational sex-oppressed paranoias PC.
Btw, what’s implied in the film is that Jimmy and the older man had a relationship, and it wasn’t just a one-time rape or something. I guess the current view that “noo, jimmy was just the victim. he’s absolutely not responsible for anything that happened” then yeah, you might be really confused. But apparently, back then they had a bit saner idea of teen’s capacity for consciousness. (I mean I’m not at all saying their laws were right, but it’d be logical to say Jimmy played a part in it.)
I’ve heard of juveniles being declared as PINS (persons in need of supervision) by the juvenile court. I guess it’s less serious than being declared a JD (juvenile delinquent).
The spinsters remark up there? I give you The Children’s Hour. Spinsters, indeed… That film was horrifying in it’s insidiousness.
Cartooniverse
Ugh, yeah. Shades of the McMartin trial there, but decades in advance. And creepier because that girl knew what she was doing when she started those rumors.
All the more horrifying because the evil came from an “innocent” little girl.
Cite?
I’m glad kids learn about that stuff now. In my middle school PE classes and my Boy Scout troop, there were quite a few mandatory viewings of videos on how to be aware of abuse by familiars and what to do if it happens.
Cite?
It took me a couple of seconds to get what you meant. Luckily I had swallowed the tea I was drinking by then.