Netflix Why Are You Offering Kiddie Porn???

[Fawlty]

Cheap shot? Your avatar features a sex-pervert and you are saying that art should be in the conversation about young children discovering their sexuality. I will ask you: What exactly did you mean by "art should be having the conversation" regarding children discovering their sexuality. How should art be having this conversation?

And now a shot at my av, which I've been using forever, and has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

I already gave an example of one way it could have been handled better. You can read back and find it yourself.

 

[LMP]

Some of you guys are missing the point of art, to invoke a strong emotional response from the viewer. The closer to the line art gets the stronger the emotional response is. Literature is filled with uncomfortable situations, a lot of the best books deal with dark subject matter that pushes the line.

No one here is saying that we are comfortable with the scene, or that we support pedophilia. Hell no one is even saying the scene is in good taste. You guys are getting your outrage on for shits and giggles.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It was children being exploited to make a silly film. It was wrong. There is not much more to say about it.

In most cases, there is no reason to have children in movies. They are awful actors and if the stories are to be believed they are used and abused by perverts and creeps within the movie industry and if the industry is not abusing them, then there parents are usually abusing them in some way.

I agree a little, but damn, I'm shocked at you being so pessimistic...

 

[kickboxjh]

I think we all know who's behind this....

To the people in this thread making excuses for the sexual abuse of children, all I can hope for is that you get what's coming to you.

If there's a hell you guys will be burning there for eternity.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

That's interesting, do you think that the famous Napalm Girl photo should have been illegal? I don't want to link the image just in case it's against the rules but it shows a naked 9 year old girl crying and running from a soldier.

http://allthatsinteresting.com/napalm-girl

I don't think nudity is porn. It has to have some type of sexual connotation.

 

[ultramanhyata]

fkn stupid .. were adults in your presence directing you to do this ?

So what you're saying is that a filmmaker should not be allowed to produce a film that depicts childhood sexual awakening and awareness as it would, by definition, require adults on the set. Right?

What other aspects of the normal human developmental experience do you also place on the list of never-to-be-depicted scenes or images?

For example, if a director asked a child actor to pretend to eat a fake booger for a scene should we expect the parent of that actor to step in and say, "Hey, wait a minute. When a child eats a booger he does it in private when he thinks no one is looking at him. Not at the direction of an adult in full view of an audience!"

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Some of you guys are missing the point of art, to invoke a strong emotional response from the viewer. The closer to the line art gets the stronger the emotional response is. Literature is filled with uncomfortable situations, a lot of the best books deal with dark subject matter that pushes the line.

No one here is saying that we are comfortable with the scene, or that we support pedophilia. Hell no one is even saying the scene is in good taste. You guys are getting your outrage on for shits and giggles.

We are outraged because young children are exploited by the movie industry (because art and free speech) and we would like to see that stopped. We should be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that all children are free from exploitation and abuse.

 

[HereticBD]

Some of you guys are missing the point of art, to invoke a strong emotional response from the viewer. The closer to the line art gets the stronger the emotional response is. Literature is filled with uncomfortable situations, a lot of the best books deal with dark subject matter that pushes the line.

Yes, but books don't require the real life manipulation and exploitation of children.

Words =/= Film

I don't now what is so hard to grasp about this. It's not about the material. It's about the human beings who are being asked to depict the material. In this case, children. "It's just art, dude" isn't much of an excuse if you're exploiting children to achieve that brand of "art". By that measure, you would be totally cool with a child/adult soft core sex scene, because it's "pushing boundaries".

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I have never seen the film. Are you saying the actress was actually underage, not just playing an underage prostitute??

She was underage but I don't remember her being naked or in any actual sexual scenes. They put make up on her and dressed her up like a prostitute. Her role in Blue Lagoon was probably more controversial.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Good for you. Maybe you should find a 10-year old boy and direct a movie about it. If people protest, then you can tell them that it is just an art-piece exploring the sexuality of young children.

This really shows who possesses a depravity of mind.

 

[Quipling]

I do not know how this is even being debated. There should be no question that sexually exploiting children is wrong. What exactly is there left to argue?

Sexually exploiting children is wrong, yes. But that entails using children for the sexual gratification of adults. What people have pointed out in this thread is that 1.) that doesn't make the scene in this film "child pornography" (which was the actual topic of the thread); 2.) children discover their sexuality and this is an important part of development (this is part of the reason exploitation is bad); and 3.) some serious art has been or can be made that touches on either of the aforementioned without involving any actual sexual exploitation of children

Your insinuation that anyone who has taken any of those positions is interested in child predation is noisome.

 

[LMP]

We are outraged because young children are exploited by the movie industry (because art and free speech) and we would like to see that stopped. We should be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that all children are free from exploitation and abuse.

So your problem is with the current laws. I agree I don't like the way our society turns it's back on children being sexually exploited, As laws currently stand this scene pushes the line, but does not cross it legally imo. Would I support laws to furth protect children in the movie industry? Absolutely.

Edit: @HereticBD

 

[Devout Pessimist]

So what you're saying is that a filmmaker should not be allowed to produce a film that depicts childhood sexual awakening and awareness as it would, by definition, require adults on the set. Right?

What other aspects of the normal human developmental experience do you also place on the list of never-to-be-depicted scenes or images?

For example, if a director asked a child actor to pretend to eat a fake booger for a scene should we expect the parent of that actor to step in and say, "Hey, wait a minute. When a child eats a booger he does it in private when he thinks no one is looking at him. Not at the direction of an adult in full view of an audience!"

This may be hard for you to understand, but most of us do not want to see the sexual awakening of a child even it is a perfectly natural and healthy thing. I do not know anyone here condemning sexuality. We are condemning children being sexually exploited.

 

[Smok3r]

I wouldn't want my kids in showbiz at all so no.

But, @&$# everyone else’s kids, right?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Sexually exploiting children is wrong, yes. But that entails using children for the sexual gratification of adults. What people have pointed out in this thread is that 1.) that doesn't make the scene in this film "child pornography" (which was the actual topic of the thread); 2.) children discover their sexuality and this is an important part of development (this is part of the reason exploitation is bad); and 3.) some serious art has been or can be made that touches on either of the aforementioned without involving any actual sexual exploitation of children

Your insinuation that anyone who has taken any of those positions is interested in child predation is noisome.

The director admitted that the children had no idea what they were doing and they were basically tricked into acting out a sexually suggestive scene. How is that not exploitation? The question has already been asked, "Would you let your young daughter be in such a scene."

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But, @&$# everyone else’s kids, right?

It's up to each parent. I wouldn't want my girlfriend to get an abortion either but I believe a woman has a right to choose. I stand by my comment that those girls almost certainly had no idea they were acting out a sexual scene. I agree it's provocative but it isn't porn. If you feel outraged that's fine but don't be so judgmental.

 

[Fawlty]

This may be hard for you to understand, but most of us do not want to see the sexual awakening of a child even it is a perfectly natural and healthy thing. I do not know anyone here condemning sexuality. We are condemning children being sexually exploited.

You aren't condemning anything though, you're getting a fix, like a drug addict. You're not here to discuss art, you're here to play your game. This is phony outrage. It revolves around your ego, and is not a discussion for you. You make that evident because you are looking for angles to get in cheap shots.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It's up to each parent. I wouldn't want my girlfriend to get an abortion either but I believe a woman has a right to choose. I stand by my comment that those girls almost certainly had no idea they were acting out a sexual scene. I agree it's provocative but it isn't porn. If you feel outraged that's fine but don't be so judgmental.

It is acceptable to exploit children as long as they do not know they are being exploited?

 

[LMP]

I think we all know who's behind this....

To the people in this thread making excuses for the sexual abuse of children, all I can hope for is that you get what's coming to you.

If there's a hell you guys will be burning there for eternity.

Don't be scared homie slam names out there.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The varying degrees of it, I suppose. For instance, there are tons of coming of age stories where kids kiss each other in movies. That could be a line for some people. I guess the discussion is where the line is. For me, the scene in question is a line stepper.

How many films involve scenes of underage boys and girls losing their virginity to one another - a fairly common human experience? Should such depiction be considered "child pornography" regardless of how it is shot or written or who is cast in the roles?