HOLLYWOOD, SEXUALITY & PREDATORY BEHAVIOR.

In the light of recent goings-on in the media, I wanted to take a moment to open a discussion about the institutional fetishization and sexualization of young men by older gays, particularly in the entertainment industry. 

As our country, and specifically Hollywood, is caught up in the throes of the #MeToo Movement, I really begin to question why certain productions, such as the recently announced sequel to a widely popular movie depicting a sexual relationship between a 17 year old boy and a man 7 years his senior; a movie that I find intrinsically controversial by nature, is still being put to screen.

I’d like to say that I am not judging or denouncing anyone’s personal experience or relationships. I understand the specific context of the story, and the details of consent. The legality and terminology of it all is not lost on me.

The problem with which I take umbrage is not the relationship shown in this movie, or any similar experiences someone may have, but rather the irresponsible and slightly tone-deaf platform Hollywood has given to a story like this in the current political state of sexual torment in this country.

This “kink” has been around for centuries. The “barely legal twink” or the “sexy catholic school girl.” The men that want to be called “Daddy.” It’s all based in learned and inherited traits that date all the way back to Ancient Greece. 

Older gays preying on younger gays isn’t something new in the community. This could be said to have originated during the Archaic period in Greece, with the tradition of “Pederasty.” This signified a relationship between and older man and a younger boy. Some describe it as a type of “mentorship,” when in the better word would be “grooming.” In modern day english, this word literally translates to “the abuse of young boys by older men.”

But, in this culture, older men (erastes) would court the young boys (eromenos) and have lengthy sexual and intimate relationships, until they grew old enough to marry. After finding a wife, they rejoin the cycle, by engaging with their own eromenos.

These young boys were the same age as their female counterparts, being given away by fathers to older suitors. What peaks my interest is the moment in time where it became a condemnable offense to partake in grooming and predatory behaviors towards young girls, while gay men continued to accept and celebrate the same types of relationships with younger boys.

The film in question depicts a consensual relationship between a 17 year old boy and a man in his mid 20s. At the time and setting of this story, was this totally legal? Yes. Does that mean, though, that it is an important story to be so widely and positively publicized in the current age of exposing and attempting to end sexual misconduct with minors, SPECIFICALLY in Hollywood? Isn’t it interesting that no one within the involvement of the production considered the controversy? Could it be because sexual relationships with minors are normal in the entertainment industry?

Even if 17 is the age of consent, or was in Italy during the ‘80s, it doesn’t mean that a story about a teenager and an adult male discovering their sexuality together is appropriate content for the political climate of uproar in our country. Again, I’m not judging anyone’s past or present, but instead trying to call attention to the seeming ignorance of the people surrounding the creation of this film and the societal factors in play that further blind gays to this narrative being a negative one. 

The ages of 16-18 are some of the most formative years of your life and the way you discover your sexuality sets the tone for the rest of your existence and your future relationships. No matter the level of attraction or consent, 17 year olds do not see the long term effects of their actions the same way you do in your 20s, 30s or 40s.

Consider these pederastic relationships, for example. Allegedly, the eromenos were given some sort of option of choosing their suitor, while the young girls did not. Anyone with a basic understanding of developmental psychology can tell you that at a young, impressionable age, any relationship with a significant age gap can be subject to uneven power dynamics. Often, no matter how consensual, this can result in some form of abuse- either physical or mental or both. Despite their choice or involvement in the matter, eromenos were still often subject to sexual exploitation, abuse, prostitution, and what, today, would be known as sex trafficking.

Grooming has become normalized in the gay community and there’s a surprisingly large portion of the older generation seem to not have a problem with this. Maybe it’s because many spent their teen years pigeonholed into ignoring their puberty and trying to distract themselves from their budding sexuality, so now as they discover it later in life they relate mentally more to teenagers than they do to people their own age. And is this an excuse? Nope.

There are plenty of things I wouldn’t have consented to at 16/17 years old, now looking back. So, for Hollywood to glamorize and glorify a story that, while may resemble many peoples real life experiences, feeds into the societal and structural normalization of relationships between minors and elders, as long as they’re gay. 

I believe that if this film was representing a relationship between a 17 year old girl and an older man that the story would be widely criticized. In fact, I can almost guarantee from the double standards and aggressive ignorance that I witness daily on social media, that if female, that 17 year old girl would still be slut-shamed rather than the adult taking responsibility for their inappropriate actions. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen that. 

Think about the “Long Island Lolita.” If you’re not aware of the story, Amy Fischer was a 17 year old girl on Long Island who was sleeping with married, 40 year old Joey Buttafuoco. In love with Buttafuoco, Fischer pled guilty and served 7 years for shooting his wife Mary Jo. Mary Jo lived, as did Buttafuoco, and Amy went on to become an author. This occurred in 1992 and I think so often about the fact that this 17 year old girl was the one titled a “lolita,” placing blame on her instead of the near-middle-aged man taking advantage of a teenager. Further, a 17 year old Fischer could not see the possible consequences or long term effects of her actions when turning to violence. It makes you question if she was a few years older, would she have handled the situation differently?

There are plenty of things I did at 17 that I was SURE I would never regret and I was wrong. Even if 17 is the legal age of consent at a certain time or place, you can still be in a consensual relationship that is inappropriate or unknowingly abusive.

This is the exact energy that people have in defending predators like Michael Jackson or R. Kelly. Barbara Streisand says because Jackson’s victims went on to lead “normal lives” with wives and children that they we’re not sexually or emotionally traumatized by having been in a relationship that was beyond their years. That is not how it works. 

In closing, my argument is not about this movie specifically and it’s not about anyone’s personal or political opinion/ affiliation. It’s about creating a safe environment for people to develop and learn about themselves and their bodies in a physically and emotionally healthful way. It’s about the media and press showcasing content that creates teachable lessons. It’s about Hollywood taking responsibility for reinforcing people’s negative or outdated ideals. It’s about keeping our youth safe and assuring a better and brighter generation of educated adults. It’s time to break the cycle.