DarienA said:
The other gays on this board... that seems like such a strange phrase to my ears.... have you been good to the blacks, whites, asians and hispanics too?
Umm, the phrase was only there because Adelgary was calling into question my conduct towards, and feelings about, gays. Nothing more or less. If somebody (explicitly or implicitly) had called me a racist, then I would have said "and the other blacks/hispanics on the board". See?
-jinx-:
First of all, I think you are (accidentally or intentionally) misstating the role of art. Art is the mirror by which humanity understands itself. Art can be made which shows ugly or distasteful things. The portrayal of something in an artistic medium does not necessarily mean that the artist intends for that thing to be seen as beautiful or good, and it is NOT an attempt to justify or shield ANYTHING from criticism. The art is separate from what the art portrays, and they ought to be judged separately.
My statement about "art not making actions or thoughts immune from criticism" didn't have anything to do with the
role of art (in terms of being a means of expression or in terms of its utility in society), but rather was about how "artistic license" is often invoked in situations such as this to shield such acts from criticism. Sure, art can express and depict all sorts of depraved thoughts and acts, and I
do realize that the mere fact of their
existence in an artistic work does not necessarily imply the author's acceptance/condoning of those things (it would have to be determined by context, how the acts are portrayed, and other evidence such as memoirs and interviews etc.). That's not at issue at all-- it's why I didn't call Kidman a pedophile or the director a pervert. So understand that
I understand that the
creation of art, and the portrayal of such acts, is not a tacit attempt by the creator to have those depictions stand beyond reproach. What I take issue with is A) how OTHERS, outside of the creative process, attempt to use the fact that it is art as sort of a "free pass" for whatever its content may be, and B) the actual PHYSICAL act of a child making out with an adult itself.
Like cvkpaladin mentioned, I would have little to no problem at all if this were a written work and an ACTUAL child did not have to be involved in such a scene. To be honest, it IS an interesting concept (a lover reincarnated in the body of a child who's in your care), and I wouldn't cringe in the slightest if such a thing were presented in writing unless it was overly eroticized and turned into some sort of child porn (the depiction of which is not to be defended in any medium imo, and which is quite different from what we have here). I'm also aware that the child actor can likely "handle it", and will not be abnormally sexualized by the scene; he'll likely suffer no adverse effects from his participation, and I fully grant that. What bothers me is that he's put into that position to begin with by adults who should know better. Eh, maybe it's just me, but I didn't have even semi-explicit sexual/physical fantasies until I was at least 11, and I was never sheltered (I used to watch horror flicks showing people having sex, though not explicitly, all the time).
I suppose it goes back to your other question about what EXACTLY it is that bothers me about the whole thing, which is a fair inquiry. Though it would take
much more time than I'm willing to devote right now, I
will say that I view childhood, and (what is ideally) its accompanying innocence, as something to be protected above all else and at all costs. I'll be the first to admit that it is not an entirely rational belief, though a lot of it is. I suppose much of it comes from my own upbringing, though those were much different times than we live in now even though it was only 15-20 years ago. Living in NY, and having several family members employed in the public school system, I
regularly hear stories of children younger than 11 being found giving each other handjobs, blowjobs, speaking in an overly sexualized manner, and propositioning their fellow students. It's seriously an epidemic. And so I just feel that anything-- in any sphere, artistic or otherwise-- which could possibly, in ANY way, perhaps sorta kinda contribute to the continuation of that trend and its possible deterioration into further depravity should be spoken against in the loudest and clearest terms possible (yes, yes, slippery slope is a fallacy, I know
-- not to mention that you may take issue with whether these things are causally related; I just feel that we shouldn't even take the chance).
Second, I really hope that you're not judging others on what they THINK, since it is possible -- even valuable, believe it or not -- to think about things from a variety of perspectives, even those perspectives which make you uncomfortable.
Well obviously. Duh.
I was more referring to certain foul thoughts which may be given air under the pretense of "art" (think: blackface, legitimate child porn, and anti-semitic Nazi propaganda etc.). And it is THOSE perspectives, and THOSE thoughts, which can, I feel, be dismissed out of hand as irrational and morally indefensible. Certain things don't deserve to be countenanced or even contemplated-- they are prima facie wrong.
Also, quite frankly, I suspect that most people have plenty of "bad thoughts," even when we end up doing the right things in the end
I personally have never had a racist, anti-semitic, or child pornish thought, ever. Not a one. And so I
do in fact, judge those who even entertain (or worse, try to rationalize) those notions beyond the extent of briefly contemplating and then discarding them. From a mental economy standpoint, one cannot perform a rigorous analysis of each and every thought and opinion one has, and so we do, at times, have to take "shortcuts"; I make no excuses for that-- but at least I tend to limit my "shortcuts" to the most self-evidently wrong conduct and thoughts, which is more than can be said for most people. Though yes, this instance in question is one where I'll admit that there is an
element of irrationality in my thought, though it is by no means entirely irrational ("nonrational" would be a better word, actually).
There are a lot of young people being molested and raped by older people, and it's wrong because they are being forced to do things against their will. But I don't see why an actor in a role he chose to accept is at all in a similar situation
Well it's clearly not equivalent to a kid getting molested or raped (or else your monitor's situation would've been a 5-alarm affair
), but so long as we only take children to be adults capable of making their own decisions at age 18 (which I both agree and disagree with depending on the decision in question, but anyway), then I really have a hard time accepting a
ten year old being allowed to "make his own decision" in a situation such as this, when all the adults around him should know better than to put the child in that situation in the first place. It's not like he's 15 or 16...he's 10. That's a long way from 18 years old, and the supposed ability to be cognizant of the ramifications of one's decisions that comes with it, however arbitrary that age cutoff may be (and it IS arbitrary). If the child was 16, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. So the concept of "choice" is not one which you can rightly apply to this situation imo, though I am by no means implying that he was coerced or forced against his will-- he may have well been apprised of the what the scene called for; it's just that we don't, as a society,
allow children of that age to judge what is proper for themselves in any other context, and I don't see why it should be any different just because the child happens to be an "actor" pursuing his craft. At the very least, how this situation relates to popular conceptions of consent and understanding is ambiguous; in all such instances, I say we should err on the side of caution. But this is an aside, as I don't feel that it is proper to speak of "consent" and "understanding" when speaking of a ten year old child, regardless of context (in other words, I'd say this same thing in an unrelated, seemingly productive, circumstance, such as a ten year old desiring to devote 15 hours/day to developing his mathematical ability to the exclusion of all else-- it is not within his power to grasp the pertinent issues concerning such a thing). Obviously, cognitive ability varies from one child to another, but, as rule, I feel it is reasonably proper. But this is just a tangent....
I don't see why people who would be interested in seeing a film containing such a scene as part of the storyline are necessarily bad people.
Well, I never said that anyone who
views the movie is a bad ("disgusting" was the word I used, to be fair to those who are criticizing me
) person, but merely those who defended the act of having a child sitting naked in a tub making out with an adult. It can be argued, obviously, that whoever sees the film is giving their tacit approval to the act; so if that's what you meant, I understand. I suppose this would be as good a place as any to state that perhaps I was a little too harsh in my condemnation of certain persons, and perhaps I didn't use the best (or most precise) possible language in conveying that. If I offended any good and decent people as a result, I apologize.
But I still strongly maintain that the child should not have been subjected to this in the first place, and it should not be silently accepted now. Though I realize that it was not always such across time and cultures (particularly in agrarian and early-industrial societies), I feel that childhood is a special time whose innocence should be preserved as far as possible. When I don't feel that enough effort is being put forth to do so, I will open my mouth. And that larger question-- of why childhood should be "protected"-- is the one which I cannot delve too deeply into right now; I will admit, however, that there are legitimate criticisms of this view which draw examples from history and ethnography, as previously noted. However, seeing as how I am not a relativist in any sense (as you well know
), I feel that one of the justifiable and correct conclusions which our culture has arrived at is the notion of the sanctity of childhood, though this can obviously only be understood in particular sociocultural epoch we live in (the latter half of the twentieth century in the US), in terms of how the notion was developed and its utility as a social construct.
(As an aside, there is much cognitive/neuropsychological evidence that childhood
is, in fact, markedly different than latter stages of development, which would indicate that it is not merely a "social construct", despite the fact that other societies throughout time have not granted it protected status...but I digress
).
And this last line of reasoning ultimately forms the foundation of my "rational" disagreement with such practices as are in question; this is a forum, however, and not a defense of an academic dissertation, and so I'll have to bow out (somewhat) gracefully, as I really don't have that sort of time (though it's never seemed to stop me before
). The "irrational" part of my beliefs just comes from somewhere deep inside of me, I suppose, and is something I
feel more than "think". But it's strong, which explains my vehemence in this instance (actually, both my rational AND "nonrational" disagreement with this is strong, but when partaking in purely rational discourse, I tend to not get so heated).
Adelgary:
But I was really joking, and I didn't mean any offence in it whatsoever.
So was my "IAWTP" post. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. But I'm known to be a very sarcastic and often joking poster. I didn't mean you any ill, infact I always liked you.
:`(
Fine, then. I'm sorry for flying off the handle like that-- it just irks me more than most because I try very hard in my life to be kind and fair to people (though that's not been in evidence in this thread, haha
), and to be dismissively labeled as some sort of monster (and, to be sure, only a monster would do the sorts of things you were jokingly attributing to me) based upon mere intellectual disagreement really gets my dander up, because then I sometimes feel like "what the hell am I even trying to be good for?" I also trust people and am loyal; I've always felt that we were cool, and to seemingly be betrayed like that just doesn't fly with me, because I've never done that to you. I knew that you were somewhat joking, but I also felt that there was a kernel of true sentiment there on your part due to your sexual orientation and my stated disagreement with it. From my end, that is not a reason to not be friends with someone, and it seemed that from your end it was (based on this comment), and that you were using that to attack me. It upset me. I suppose I overreacted, but I hope you see where I'm coming from, at least. Sorry.
Mr. Ping:
Would you like to ban all war films where people get bits blown off and are lying and screaming in pain? What about films with graphic rape scenes? Are they in some way more allowed that an adult kissing a 10 year old. Geez its not like she was tonguing him, and no passion involved.
People's limbs getting blown off, or graphic rape scenes in movies do not ACTUALLY INVOLVE people losing their arms and real women getting ACTUALLY raped. If they did, your analogy would have some merit; not only that, but I imagine that lots of people would take issue with it (I'm not dawing parallels here, just using this example because he brought it up). What I always took issue with is the act, not the description of it, which is why if this were a book, I'd have no problem. The tongue thing is something which has yet to be established, but judging from the reaction of several people involved in the film (as a previous poster mentioned), I'd assume it was a bit more than a peck on the lips. Also, realize that my comments only stand if it turns out that there was, in fact, MAKING OUT, and not a little kiss w/o tongue.
