Talk:Revenge of the Nerds

The rape scene

The scene were Lewis puts on a mask and pretends to be Betty's boyfriend, then has sex with Betty while she is thinking she is sleeping with her boyfriend... did Lewis actually rape her? I mean legally, was it rape? JayKeaton 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it would be considered rape, yes. --GracieLizzie 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think that would NOT be considered rape --Davidweiner23 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think that WOULD be considered rape. Just like huge amounts of alcohol or certain drugs can be used to impair a person's judgment, Lewis used a Darth Vader disguise to impair Betty's, thus making her believe she was having sex with her boyfriend. How is this not rape? Current laws make is statutory rape to have sex with children because their judgment has not developed to the point where they may make decisions about who to have sex in an emotionally and psychologically ready manner, and having sex with a legally retarded person is also considered rape for the same reason. If Betty, because of Lewis's deliberate actions, is unable to judge the situation as she normally would by believing Lewis to be her boyfriend, this is most obviously rape.

Now, obviously, it's not portrayed as rape in the movie and it's not meant to be seen that way. Betty enjoys what happened, the movie ends up in a "they lived happily ever after (until the sequel)" mode, and it's a movie from 1984, a time where the opinions on the subject from the film's main demographic would probably just seen this as a funny romance incident where the good guy gets the girl. Whatever the portrayal and intentions, though, unless you can provide a reason why it is not, it should be considered rape. Think Gone With The Wind, except not as controversial because instead of a violent rape it is an impairment of the judgment (and because less people are likely to have seen Revenge Of The Nerds than Gone With The Wind, =P). Just like in gone with the wind, the raped party ends up enjoying what happened, but that does not mean rape did not occur. Jaimeastorga2000 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rape is when someone has sex with a person who cannot give consent. Being underage means they can't consent, being drunk means they can't consent, etc. Betty gave her consent (just did so under false pretenses) and therefor it's not rape - maybe regrettable, but not rape.JW 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What he did was not a crime in Massachusets[1]. Rklawton 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, from that same link, "If the Legislature wants to make fraud an element of rape, it should follow the lead of several other states and change the law, the court said." It seems like, if perhaps not a crime in Massachusetts, it is a crime in "several other states." Jaimeastorga2000 19:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to rewatch the scene but, I would have to say that there is no possible way for Betty to mistake Lewis's body, that of a scrawny pasty-white black haired self-accepting nerd, with that of her boyfriend, a tanned well-built blonde football jock. Even without the costume taken off, this should have been obvious. --Centerone (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. AFAIK, rape occurs only when non-concensual intercourse takes place. In both Revenge of the Nerds and Gone with the Wind, sex takes place off-camera so there is ambiguity as to whether or not consent was made beforehand. In Nerds, it seems most likely that Betty was well aware that she wasn't having sex with Stan. Her response at the end was not a horrified "you're not my boyfriend!" but more a surprised "you're that nerd!" She knew she was cheating on Stan, she just wasn't sure with who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.172.117 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the charge would be, but I'd liken it to the case of that guy who was calling McDonalds employees and pretending to be a cop in order to get girls to strip. Was he not charged with sexual assault?

It would seem that fraudulently coercing people into sexual situations is a crime; however, I think the real problem with this whole debate is that Revenge of the Nerds, while not exactly Lord of the Rings, is pretty fantastical. As has been mentioned, the entire fact that Betty is tricked is somewhat bizarre, though it would make a great argument that we could assume she, being at a big all day festival, had been drinking.

Yes. The movie is so over the top and ridiculous, the "is it rape" part is trivial, and depends entirely on the state's laws. I think a far more gaping "plot hole" is the fact that they destroyed a house and the police didn't arrest anyone, and that an employee could seriously threaten to beat up his boss without being fired.

I'm really surprised so many people make or defend accusations towards Lewis, because it's just such an insanely silly movie. I always thought part of the humor was that the nerds commit all of these acts that are undoubtedly criminal in nature. 63.231.172.200 (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at people's understanding of the law and/or common sense. It is 100% rape. She CLEARLY thinks she is having sex with Stan (she says "Oh Stan that was wonderful" at the screen pans down to them finishing up)...the idea that she gave consent is absurd. She was consenting to have sex with Stan. Not the nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitrightthefirsttime (talk • contribs) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Since people are trying to add this again. Consider the time when this movie was made - sex crimes - while they certainly occurred - were not as significant as they are now. Today, that scene could be a problem, but back then, it's part of the comedy of the time, she didn't complain after the fact, etc. etc. It's not appropriate to call it "rape", but of course we can't called it "consensual sex" either. Instead we simply leave it as the movie impressed - she was surprised at how much better it was with the nerds than the jocks, and thus part of the nerds' victory. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above ^^. I know it is a sensitive subject but again, as has already been stated, Betty didn't complain, she was surprised, but not combative nor did she stop him. I find it hard to believe that Betty wouldn't know it wasn't Stan. Remember, this is a movie. Obviously the police in the town do not care about other crimes going on in the film either. I suggest too, that we leave it as the movie implies it is.--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} • 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rape - not an issue way back in 1984. Keep it classy, wikipedos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.233.96 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Update, August, 2012 - I have reverted the attempt to add "rape" three separate times this year ([2], [3], [4]). IF she had freaked out after discovering him not to be Stan Gable, and IF she had then reported him to the police, then (and only then) could the word "rape" be introduced. This did not happen in the film, so there was no rape. Yeeesh... Doc talk 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was rape. You have a very retarded belief in 1) What rape is and is not, and 2) Your qualifications for making that determination. I think you should refrain from participating in wikipedia editing as you are obviously too stupid to be of any use here, or anywhere else.Jonny Quick (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jonny Quick: You're responding to someone who commented more than a year ago. You should use {{ping}} to notify him. This whole discussion does not include secondary sources. Something as controversial as this should not be left up to editors' interpretations. If we find publications discussing this scene as rape, then we would reference this publications for inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that "rape" has a very negative connotation, and that's not how the scene is played out, it is improper to call it rape - also considering in light of the time this movie was made (when sex and swinging were highly prevalent at the time). Yes, if the same scene was filmed today under today's morale, the outcome would have been vastly different, but we're considering what happened then. Add to the fact that when she discovered his true identity she did not react as if it was not concentual after the fact. So while under today's legal definition that the action would be called "rape", this film does not attempt in any means to portray the action as such, so it should not be called "rape". --MASEM (t) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This was rape. Pure and simple rape. She says No to him throughout the movie, and he decides to turn it into yes by taking advantage of her by disguising himself as her boyfriend and raping her. Lewis is a rapist. He raped Betty. It doesn't matter that his happened in 1984 or 2014, this was a rape. Also, Masem misspelled consensual, which makes me doubt he knows what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpizzahandz (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not WP:OR to say that this was rape. According to Wikipedia's own definitions of rape and consent, this is what is depicted onscreen, regardless of whether it is presented as a negative. Connotation and authorial intent doesn't change what is depicted. In Birth of a Nation, racist actions are displayed as just, but that doesn't make them less racist. Intentions don't matter; that's where you get into original research. What matters is a concise description of what is depicted. There's no extra steps being taken to portray what happens as a rape; "rape" and "consent" are being used appropriately to describe at face value what happens onscreen. To be fair, the plot summary for this article in general is excessive, this is a minor detail from the plot, and it should probably be removed entirely. 72.248.144.178 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No one disagrees that from a technical standpoint it was rape - it meets the straight-forward definition. The problem is that neither the movie or the culutre at that time depict it as rape - it's a satire/spoof movie. Rape has a very negative connotation and that is not at all suggested by the movie - which is a comedy movie, and that is why we avoid it. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. To simply state that he raped her is totally misleading to the reader, and it's not going to fly. It just is not depicted as a rape (despite what it technically is), and this is a comedy film. To state Louis "raped" her not only has very negative connotations, it has violent ones. It is ludicrous to keep edit-warring this in here; and if we have to semi-protect the article, so be it. Doc talk 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Current mainstream publications (link provided) refer to this scene as one that depicts a rape. It does not matter the time period, genre, or really anything about the film or the time of its creation. The scene in question depicts a rape. The film's narrative does not recognize it. The film has that right. A Wikipedia article on the film should depict the facts of the plot. Sex without consent is rape. This happens in the film clearly. http://www.avclub.com/article/was-the-revenge-of-the-nerds-series-a-prophetic-vi-106413 Michael Tannenbaum, USA citizen, and a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.140.228 (talk • contribs)

We can discuss in the reception area that some of the scenes in that movie under present morals would be highly questionable, including that scene. But it doesn't make it "rape" in context of the original work when it was released. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

On reading some of the articles that call the scene rape (all written very recently and acknowledging the nature of causal sex of the 80s), a good point raised by many is that we have no idea exactly what happened. We know Betty likely felt a sexual high, and she compared Lewis in size to Stan, but we have no idea if they removed their pants or had intercourse (yes yes it's heavily implied but still, it would be effectively original research to say intercourse, much less rape). There's no issue with having part of the Reception of the article discuss the re-evaluation of the film's approach under today's morals, and that yes, many call what Lewis did as date rape, but in the context of the film , set on a college campus in the 1980s, there's no way we can even approach that term in the plot summary. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a better article to refer to than the above one.[5] Interestingly, there is no mention of the date rape scene in Sixteen Candles in our article, neither in the plot summary or the "Controversy" section. It's glossed over instead, saying, "Jake later uses the excuse of finding them together to break up with Caroline (who had surprisingly fallen for Ted and doesn't mind the break-up very much)." In reality, Caroline believes Ted is Jake in her drunken stupor; so Ted technically "rapes" her in the story. Doc talk 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be honest and call rape rape. Even back in the 80s, rape was rape. Rape by deception is rape. Let's update the plots of these films to be quite clear on the fact that women got taken advantage of, and it's implied that they were sexually assaulted. What is the problem with being honest about rape in popular film? - clifhenning 23:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No , we can't do that. While rape did happen in the 80s, the prevailing morality at the time would never have considered this as such. It is fair in a reception section to say "omg, that was rape that had in that" from sources published today, but the film no way, no how calls it rape. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Clifhenning's edit, I see we can completely remove any indication this was a sexual encounter for purposes of keeping out plot summary neutral whether it was rape or not. I again say the question is completely fair to write about in the Reception section as a question of hindsight, as there are sources that do clearly say it was straight-up date rape. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a lot of the discussion surrounds whether or not words "sexual assault" or "rape" should be included in the summary based on whether or not the film showed rape, or intended to show rape, and how audiences of the time would have seen it. 1: Based strictly on the on screen actions, this scene easily meets the definition of rape by deception without any original research or extra effort taken. 2: Explaining what the film actually showed, rather than what it intended to show is a much more accurate and less confusing approach. If a character steals something, but within the context of a film the act isn't shown to be wrong, the description still says the character stole something without the discussion over whether "steal" is too harsh of a word to use, because it's the most accurate description. Why is rape any different? 3: How the audiences of the time would have interpreted it isn't relevant, because we're not writing a movie summary for them. We're writing one for people in 2015, people who understand that someone doesn't have to scream and fight back for it to be rape. If this discussion continues, there needs to be a controversy section made because editors have already produced more than enough sources criticising this scene in the film. Kiddyjanna (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Kiddyjanna (talk), just wanted to inform you that there is another discussion of whether or not Wikipedia wants to call rape, a rape. Ah, the white washing of Wikipedia! Please add your remarks here. See [6] MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 07:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

While the scene in question could be considered legal rape in some jurisdictions, in others it isn't. When the movie was made, ideas about rape and date rape, etc. were much different. In order for a rape prosecution to go forward, a victim would need to complain. In this movie the "victim" did not complain, and even expressed pleasure from the act. If she had complained, then it certainly could have been rape in some places. Since we do not know the location of the fictional Adams College, it is impossible to say that this was rape as defined by the laws in that jurisdiction. Sf46 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:Principle of Least Astonishment, mentioning the interprepation of this plot point as a rape is required. A reader with modern sensibilities would definitely be astonished for it to be glossed over. This can be done by referencing the controversy section further down the article. Eigenbra (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Imagine if all the keyboard warriors here were as devoted to fighting rape in reality as in the hallowed digital walls of Wikipedia. I kid, that would involve effort. What a laughable worthless site this has become. But keep huffing your own prententious farts. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.199.144 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Really a teen movie?

Is this movie really a teen movie? Checking the reference sited for the description of the film (ref #5) just takes you to TCM list of cast & crew. If you click the internal link for the description of the film there is no mention of it being a teen movie.Mborchardt1977 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 October 2024 and 23 October 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZachariahJonassaint (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ZachariahJonassaint (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)