Towelhead and the Normalization of Sex with Children
At the 1999 Academy Awards, Elia Kazan, the legendary director of On The Waterfront, A Streetcar Named Desire, East Of Eden, and many other timeless classics, received an honorary lifetime achievement Oscar. As the ninety-year-old took the stage, one-third of liberal Hollywood refused to stand or even applaud, refused to forgive Kazan the four decades-old “sin” of naming names during the blacklist era.
However, just three years later, no such protest was mounted when the Oscar for best director was awarded to Roman Polanski, a man who in 1977 pled guilty to drugging and sodomizing a thirteen-year-old girl. Of course, Polanski wasn’t there to receive his Oscar. He’s still a fugitive from the law for that crime.
Is this just another example of liberal Hollywood values? Hypocrisy? Unfortunately, it goes much deeper than that. There’s a new civil rights push in Hollywood: the right to have sex with your children. And this Friday, with Towelhead, Hollywood releases their next theatrical volley to normalize the very worst kind of sexual deviancy.
During the Q&A, after a sneak preview of Towelhead, writer/director Alan Ball (Six Feet Under) said of child rape, “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.” The context of such a statement is important and can be found in his film, the story of a thirteen-year-old Arab girl, Jasira (Summer Bishil), who‘s raped by her Army Reservist neighbor (Aaron Eckhart), molested by her mother‘s boyfriend, and sexually manipulated by Thomas (Eugene Bradley), a young classmate. When it’s all over, not only is Jasira’s soul not destroyed but she suffers no emotional or psychological damage whatsoever. In fact, to quote Ball again, the “experience makes her stronger.” The film ends on a triumphant note, with the thirteen-year-old sexually empowered by the abuse and ready to have a relationship with the aforementioned Thomas.
Towelhead is the latest in a years-long Hollywood crusade to make the child molester sympathetic and the act of molestation just another step in the evolution of normal, healthy, youthful sexuality. Which isn’t to say that say that child molesters should only ever be presented as one-dimensional, mustache-twisting deviants.
In both Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 version and Adrian Lyne’s equally fine 1997 remake, Lolita’s Humbert Humbert is a pederast consumed with desire for the fourteen-year-old daughter of his landlady, whom he later marries just to stay close to the young girl. After the wife dies, he embarks on a road trip and sexual affair with his new step daughter. Humbert is no one-dimensional monster. At times he’s even pitiable. But inexorably we watch the affair strip him of all dignity until it so destroys him emotionally he proves capable of murder. Young Lolita doesn’t fare much better. She marries the first guy who asks and winds up pregnant and broke on a dirt farm before her eighteenth birthday.
In 1998, Todd Solondz wrote and directed the indie film Happiness, an explicit but thoughtful look at the sexual dysfunction of an extended family. At the center is Dylan Baker’s memorable performance as Bill Maplewood, a suburban father, husband, and child rapist. Though desperate to stop himself, upon hearing from his son that a classmate has been left home alone a few days, Maplewood rapes the boy and is eventually exposed to both his family and community.
The interesting thing about the article above is the fact that “Lolita”, the book anyway, has (at least according to my understanding) suffered for far too long from what you might call the “Short People” effect. This is named for the Randy Newman song “Short People”, which is about prejudice. Newman deliberately chose a characteristic as benign as possible to show how silly prejudice is, or can be, and doesn’t really want to talk about the song any more. From what I understand he’s very tired of being stopped by louts who yell “Hey Randy, short people suck!” and other pearls of wisdom.
Similarly, “Lolita” is about self-delusion and a main character who’s out of control. Humbert Humbert narrates the novel, his story of how he came to be convicted and sentenced to death. Humbert believes all of his actions are understandable and reasonable, and he tries to recount them to you in a way that will convince you he’s right. Nabokov made him a pederast (and had him kill her mother, his wife, in order to get at the title character) in order to emphasize how outrageous the self-deception Humbert has inflicted on himself is. The strange thing here is that when Nabokov wrote the book, child molesting was beyond the pale. Now, what with school teachers picking their next paramour from their classes regularly, it’s rather the norm, and not nearly as shocking.
It’s a pretty obscene political allegory that Hollywood no doubt thinks is clever.
The girl is an Arab immigrated from Iraq, right, and the reservist that rapes the girl is a Texan. Bush is a Texan from the Air National Guard that raped Iraq, right? And the Iraqi girl refuses to remain a victim under the Texan oppressor, and eventually ‘triumphs’ in maintaining a indomitable soul.
It isn’t really a story about another person at all, its a self-indulgent fantasy about overcoming Chimperor Shrub’s redstate oppressiveness set on film.
Beyond that, it sounds like the usual drivel about how anything a woman ever experiences- and the list is truly infinite now- “empowers” her. I blame Oprah.
I want to see the other kind of controversial film, with one with the Tom Clancy’s ‘Without Remorse’-style vigilante executing street justice on sexual predators. Done smartly, it could challenge the ‘Dark Knight’ franchise in popularity.
For some reason, this article is not very shocking to me. It is way too normal for UnHolywood.
It’s worth noting that those who seek to hide their process of normalization usually hide behind a ‘civil rights’ curtain. Lets compile a short list of things once considered bad that are now unjudged or good :
Premarital sex
unmarried motherhood
public displays of homosexuality
addiction (alcohol, pot, sex?, food?, worse)
sloth (welfare, government money as a lifestyle)
When you present this list to someone who wants their deviancy normalized, they add …
minority land owndership
women voting
freedom from enslavement
Very different things. But lumped together for their purposes. Alas, the extreme left owns the schools so they start their indoctrination at the very beginning, against the wishes of individual parents and the body politic whole. To fix the normalized deviancy, the first step is to break the teachers unions crushing grip on our children, and depoliticize academia. Educated Americans would not fall prey to Hollywood disinformation like the product of our schools do now.
Hollywood is lazy, this is why it is a failing industry without any hope of recovery.
Now that the line of easy credit has dried up, there is no way Hollywood will be able to readjust to the economic circumstances it now faces.
The days of multi-millionaire movie making are over; if all that is offered is shock subjects only the mentally disturded will line up to see those movies.
Hollywood is not going to be able to survive our new economic era; it is over for Tinsel Town.
If I were working in Hollywood, I would look for another profession.
No one will give easy credit to Hollywood anymore, it’s all downhill from here. Get out while you can.
Hollywood has become a national embarrassment.
People would do well by themselves to find other, more constructive ways to spend their time. There are many.
I’ve actually seen the movie and, as a conservative Christian Republican, saw very little to be concerned about. It is a very frank look at many of the sexual issues facing teenagers.
The girl clearly is emotionally damaged by the non-violent rape and other sexual experiences.
The rapist is caught and prosecuted.
The details are not particularly slanted. The girl is Arab, but not Muslim, she is a Christian Lebanese-American. The girl is overly interested in sex partly because her father is so close minded about sex. “Towelhead” is an epithet used by high school kids who don’t understand the fact that being an Arab does not necessarily mean being a Muslim.
I actually wish I’d brought my teenage son with me to this movie. There were a lot of lessons to be learned, mostly by negative example.
Hollywood’s biggest problem isn’t the fact that it’s perverse, it has always been rather perverse in its own way. Hollywood’s real problem is this… none of the movies described in this article sound even remotely interesting in any way. I watch movies all the time. I frequently see little subliminal hits on America and western values which infuriate me, but if a movie isn’t absolutely laced with them, I don’t get wound up about it. Some movies just suck and have nothing to offer but shock value, and the uncreative dolts in Hollyweird are running out of ideas, and new talent with differing opinions isn’t welcomed.
Also Tom, if that is your real nom de plume, when you are trying to make people believe that you are one of them, it’s very unconvincing to start by saying “I’m one of you, and I think the exact opposite about this subject.” I wish the left could invent a better tactic than mimicry. “I thought about taking my son to a perverted movie to see if he would understand the subtle nuances of sexual ambiguity presented in the film.” Teenagers are curious about sex, so it’s okay for adults to have sex with them? What is Christian, Conservative, or Republican about that line of thinking, Tommy? I bet you think Obama wouldn’t be so bad as a president either.
Matt:
Obama would be a disaster as president. I have been a Republican since before I had the good fortune to meet Ronald Reagan when he was campaigning for the nomination (and almost winning it) against Nixon in 1968.
Watching a movie about adults having sex with children is not the same as condoning it. But guess what- in the real world, a lot of adults have sex with children. This movie highlights a particular way in which an adult gets inside the head of this young girl and gets her to “consent” to the sex act. Pretty useful for parents to be aware of.
I hope conservatives don’t have to all fall into the same lockstep groupthink on every subject as liberals seem to do- that’s the exact opposite of the liberty that we seek.
Also, the actress in the movie is 20 years old and the sex scenes are not very graphic.
Tom’s defense of ‘Towelhead’ in subjective terms is certainly his own business, however there are some facts I’d like to correct.
First, the young actress wasn’t 20 — she was barely 18 when ‘Towelhead’ was filmed. As a matter of fact, when she auditioned she was 17.
I know this because the actress said so during the Q&A after the screening.
And, yes, the actress may be of age, but the character is 14 and very much looks 14.
Second, the sex scenes are, in fact, quite graphic — especially in the all-important mind’s eye. I don’t want to go into detail but when a film opens on a 14 year old character wearing only a bra and panties, with her private area covered in shaving cream … well, I don’t know what you call graphic, especially when it pertains to a child.
Furthermore, her sexual awakening brought on by this sexual abuse has her learning about the power of orgasm through excessive masturbation while looking at photographs of naked women. This is conveyed through a ‘comedic’ montage.
Finally, there is clearly ZERO emotional damage damage brought on by her sexual abuse. On the contrary, at the end of the film this young girl is not only emotionally and sexually liberated, she decides on a relationship with one of her abusers.
Tom’s contention that there was no emotional damage also contradicts the filmmaker himself who made very clear during the Q&A that the entire point of the film was to say that such an experience can make one “stronger.”
Kirk’s comment goes to the heart of the matter and is eloquently stated.
I don’t think I’ll bother seeing this movie.
Thanks, Mr. Nolte for saving me from ever watching this movie including on “free” television.
And Matt, the ‘hits on America and western values’ aren’t little and they aren’t subliminal. If you think thsy are then your are either a Democrat or a pubescent child or a retard.
My blood is boiling
John:
The character is clearly emotionally damaged- that’s why she decides on a relationship with one of her abusers.
Eighteen or 20- it doesn’t matter, she was an adult and to watch the film is not to watch child porn.
In the film review world, graphic sexuality generally refers to seeing sexual organs on the screen- and there is none of that as I remember.
I am not to smart. Maybe some reader could please explain to me and everyone else what the difference is between homosexuality and pedophilia? I for one equate both behaviors as the same. But if there is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, I would really like to know how scientists and social workers categorize those differences?
I think these films say more about the human nature of their makers than anything else.
When something horrendous happens to you as a child, the very hardest (but most mature) thing to say to yourself about it is “This was horrendous, but it ended up being a net positive; nevertheless, it should not have happened.” It is much, much easier to say either “This was an outrage and should never happen to anyone else again” or “This was perfectly normal, nay beneficial, and should happen to anyone.” I have seen people destroy their lives and the lives of others with both the former and the latter approach.
Thus the woman verbally harangued as a child, who goes ballistic if you use the word “silly” in reference to her kid. The son of an alcoholic, who crushes his home life crusading against drinking. The woman whose mother’s lesbianism made her life a living hell, moves herself and her kids in with another woman. The man who saw his mother beaten, who beats his wife. The woman who was raped by her cousin, who refuses to ever enjoy even marital sex with a man she loves. The man who was seduced as a teen, who believes that teen seduction is glorious. All because they have this need to declare what happened to them either Absolutely Right or Absolutely Wrong, and they haven’t mustered the strength to overcome that need.
I have known all these people, and so have you. None of the ones I knew, however, made movies. But if they did, I’d be willing to bet at least some of them would make movies like these, because they sure as hell made lives like these.
I’ve made this same point on Nolte’s website, Dirty Harry’s Place, which you should visit if you like intelligent commentary on culture and movies.
First, much of this sex-with-kids is gay driven, along the lines of “Big Love” (polygamy) in a two-fer: first shock the bourgeoisie, and second make the argument that since straight sex can be so icky, why not legalize gay marriage and “accept” gay couples. This is the explicit argument made by the gay creators of Big Love.
It does btw strengthen the arguments of those who argue that gay marriage = legalized polygamy, since gays themselves make that argument in HBO.
Alan Ball, openly gay man, is behind both American Beauty and Towelhead, and lacks both critical understanding of the male-female dynamic, and heterosexual relationships. The Gay culture largely preaches hedonism, attend any Gay Pride festival or parade to see for yourself. Very few gay men actually marry, in Toronto according to Mark Steyn it has been available for the better part of a decade and only 200 or so have actually taken advantage.
In the West, it is not normal for either sex to have many, many partners of impulsive desire, and our culture, largely, is built upon suppression of that instinct. Just as it is not normal for say, an adult man like Osama bin Laden to arrange to marry a 16 year old by negotiating with her father. A gay man could no more understand this than a straight man the nature of gay bath-houses.
Much of the sexualization of teenagers in film is driven by gay men (and a few straight women such as the director of “Hounddog” aka the Dakota Fanning exploitation movie). Arguing that since straight sex is hypocritical and icky, there should be no restraints.
What is pathetic is the fact that while teenagers will indeed have sex, they make bad choices if left to themselves, without parents and the wider community to guide them away from bad, destructive choices and into good, productive ones (fooling around harmlessly instead of explicit sex, with a nice, age appropriate partner).
Fundamentally, Hollywood has rejected age-old rules that work in favor of libertine freedoms. That don’t even work for millionaires, much less middle/working class teens.
“Tom K:
I’ve actually seen the movie and, as a conservative Christian Republican, saw very little to be concerned about. It is a very frank look at many of the sexual issues facing teenagers.”
Yeah, riiight.
Are all of you people so sick that you have to “explain” or justify the plot of the movie. Why in God’s name would you even make a comment beyond “the man who made this movie is a sick animal”? Only an animal would say that child rape doesn’t destroy a child and that is obviously the nature of the man who made this film. You, don’t reason with brute beasts. YOU SHOUT THEM DOWN! Have all of you completely lost your minds? This is why we have gone totally off the rails and equated sodomy between two men with sex between a husband and wife. You do not accept the sick premise of a sick, sick individual. Why doesn’t the sick pervert Alan Ball ask a victim of child rape how they felt about being raped. I’m afraid that he would probably take sick pleasure in hearing about it.
Broadway doesn’t seem mind mere technicalities like age of consent either. James Barbour is back in a show after doing some time for “endangering the welfare.” NY1′s ON-STAGE just asked how the experience informed his performance in TALE OF TWO CITIES. Not “are you reformed?” or “are you supervised when near your underage cast-members?,” which seem like the obvious questions to ask.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/01/03/2008-01-03_type_casting_broadway_beast_james_barbou.html
Absolutely disgusting idea of a movie… but unfortunately shouting them down really wouldn’t accomplish what one would hope because they obviously aren’t listening to us here in middle conservative America anyway. The only way to really impact them is with your wallet- you don’t buy it, they don’t make money, eventually they go away.
As for me, I think I’ll go see something else, like An American Carol. It looks like the only ones who get hurt with this movie are those with no sense of humor.
Just to clear up a usage issue, the word “pederast” used to describe Humbert Humbert is incorrect. It refers exclusively to men who have sex with boys.
If you dispense with the concept of right and wrong, the only evil in the world is people who still believe in the concept of morality.
That’s Hollywood’s boogeyman. Nothing else is repugnant to them.
Anyone who opens a comment with “and, as a conservative Christian Republican” is so obviously an astroturfer it isn’t even funny.
It seems to me what is at issue is that some think we should not limit anything at all. That sounds good until you or those you love suddenly become victims of those who use & abuse but claim, no harm done.
If my nation ever legalizes or accepts pedophilia or any variant of it, I may end up being the one the authorities are looking for because I may end up being one of many who will end up going after the louts who do damage to the innocent.
Hollywood has lost its class. It has lost a moral compass. They seem to revel in moral bankruptcy & think we are the fool’s. Yet many of those seeking to change us into the same animals they are always seem to end up in jail, drunk, & living failed lives.
It is heartening to see Hollywood once again on the cutting edge of tackling one more archaic holdover from the ignorant past. Their sensitive and humane portrayal of “the other love that dare not mention its name” will stimulate more dialogue, and hence more tolerance and understanding of alternative sexual practices. Even the APA (American Psychological Association) is removing the past barrier and professional prejudice against this love orientation, realizing that previous categorizing it as deviant was only based upon religious influence and bias. They are discovering that children can be full sexual beings and should have the rights to express themselves so even if that means with a much older person of either gender. The repression of children’s sexuality is truly repressive. Hollywood, the APA, and many progressives are opening the doors to remove this one last sexual taboo and, as Michael Jackson would say, “It’s all for the children.”
“During the Q&A, after a sneak preview of Towelhead, writer/director Alan Ball (Six Feet Under) said of child rape, ‘Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.’”
Talk to me and my siblings, Alan. Our father raped us for years, beginning when we were infants and ending when we “got big enough to hit back,” as he said. He’s 80 now, a broken shambles of a man, haunted by his fear of going to hell. And that’s where he’s going. He goes to church and prays, but he won’t ask any of his children to forgive him, because he won’t acknowledge that he’s a monster.
You can go ahead and dismiss my own drug abuse, alcoholism, and attraction to psychotic abusers as idiosyncratic weakness, but how do you explain the fact that all five of my siblings–men and women both–are dysfunctional in exactly the same way?
Our home was a factory, and it produced six identical people. We all have different personalities, but we all have the exact same history of horrible life choices and substance abuse. Three of us had sex with each other (not me), and three of us have molested children (not me).
The last time I had sex was in 2000. I’m 46 years old, and I’ve given up on it. My therapist told me in 1997 that he could no longer work with me, because I’d gone as far as I ever would. The best I could expect out of life was to recognize that I was in yet another nightmarishly degenerate relationship and escape it sooner. I would never attract a normal, healthy person, because I was not healthy myself. Nor would I ever be.
Boy, was I pissed off at him. How dare he! I’d show him!
I then went out and had the two worst relationships of my life, the last one with a bipolar psychiatrist who used my background against me. I spilled my guts to her, and she threw it all back in my face, telling me how sick, twisted, and filthy I was, how I enjoyed sex with my father, and how I led him on. As an infant.
I don’t enjoy celibacy, but it’s a relief. Looking back, I never enjoyed sex, either, even though I was in love a couple of times.
Just in case anybody reading this article is tempted to rationalize molesting children, let me assure you that when you do that, it sentences your victim to a living death. We the molested are forever on the outside of humanity, looking in at those of you who can experience love and healthy, restorative sex. We miss out on the only real reason to live.
Not all of us live in this twilight. Some of us are strong and can overcome what was done to them.
But my five siblings and I weren’t. None of us have killed ourselves yet, but statistically two of us will choose that option. I won’t, because I’ve gotten used to solitude. I want to see how the world will change in the next couple of decades. I enjoy watching things evolve.
But there are days when I realize that my life was a total waste. I love children and they love me, but their trust makes me physically nauseated. I can’t bear to be around them. And yet I wish more than anything that I could’ve been a father, in order to purge myself of my memories. If I could’ve been a father–a good one–I could sleep at night instead of staying up until the dawn, posting on Internet forums, watching the news, and imagining what it would be like to have a family.
When you molest someone, you kill them. It’s as simple as that.
I’m not surprised that some jackass liberal thinks getting raped as a child is ultimately empowering: It just means he’s rationalizing what he wants to do himself. He tells himself he’ll be doing that hot 13-year-old a favor by initiating her into the world of adult sex.
The biggest lie ever told?
Children are resilient.
Only selfish, abusive adults believe that.
I suppose there are people who can benefit from even the most horrible experiences, but that’s not the way to bet.
Having been in a self-help group that made me privy to the misery of adults who were child victims of sexual predation, I feel I know a bit more about the subject than most people do, so I insist: the damage done is almost always devastating.
No doubt in my mind — sex with children is abusive, no matter what the immediate outcome seems to be. This “what does not kill me, makes me stronger” nonsense is not just factually wrong — it’s evil. Denial can and almost always does cover up the injury in the short term. Years later, the victim wonders why his or her life is so wretched, and can find peace only by going through a prolonged period of coming to grips with the horror of the past.
There is effective help for victims, if they have the courage to seek it out and the persistence to work with it. The real question is what we should do with the offenders, IMHO.
“Dumbing down deviancy” – this is how Patrick Moynahan described with a different occasion liberals’ ratiocinating, and Hollywood’s position when trying to inject understanding and open-mindedness in the pedophilia matter fits very well Moynahan’s diagnosis.
Of course one can nuance any issue well into the gluons’ realm – but despite the occasional, apparent fuzziness of the larger social arrangement, the human behavior is quite precisely defined by anthropological rules and expectations (a liberal would use here the “oppression” term), which come from historical times, one of them being the protection of elders and children/youth.
Pedophilia is one of the abuses which break this historical taboos – and no matter how Allan Ball and his ilk try to justify it, it is highly harmful for the object of this kind of attention – and equally harmful for the society who finds the “enlightenment” to listen or approve those justification.
That’s hollywood doing their part in degrading our morals. It’s the liberal thinking that anything is allright,being openminded.
Tom W.,
I’m not really religious, but sometimes I do pray anyway. I pray that you find as much peace as you can in this life considering the horrible things done to you when you were younger. I really can’t understand what you’re going through, but just know that this stranger truly wishes the very best for you.
Snaggle-tooth (Schnargley) I don’t think you are a human. I cannot imagine why someone would even say those things. You are completely devoid of a soul. I feel so bad for you. You must be a misery to be around. I think you post these opinions to get to people. How pathetic you must feel.
Tom W….Jesus loves you and can heal you. Sometimes He is the only one you can trust. Try Him.
Tom W, I feel for you brother. It sounds like a hellish life journey. The only hope really is in Christ. He can heal the broken places. He did it for me when drugs turned my life to ashes.
Kelly, Schnargeley is a satirist trying to be an ultra liberal for laughs. He doesn’t realize some things aren’t funny.
Tom,
I also suffered for many years from abuse from my mother’s second husband. These types of films make me physically ill in memory of the helplessness and fear of being victimized like that. Your anger comes through loud and clear from your letter. Your passion is admirable.
I hope you can find healing. I would recommend you look into a book called “Making Peace with your Past.” It is tremendously therapeutic and may help you resolve some of your issues. God bless you and I wish I could help you somehow.
Thanks for the supportive comments.
We’re all dealt different sets of cards in life, and it’s up to each of us to figure out how best to use them.
Let my experience be an object lesson.
When someone tells you that child rape is not a soul-destroying event, all you need to know is that the person is either a pedophile or wants to be one.
There is no gray area here. Adults having sex with children is evil, and those who promote it or rationalize it are complicit in the lifelong agony that it produces.
Don’t let anybody convince you otherwise.
Just FYI, the definition of pederast is: A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy. Yall are incorrectly using the word. Humbert from Lolita would NOT be a pederast.
I haven’t seen most of the movies mentioned in the article, yet, but I thought Lolita (the book and the latest movie), Downfall, AND the Woodsman were all very good character studies of monsters.
The Woodsman was a bit more sympathetic, but the movie was focusing on a molester that had “done his time” (is it ever really long enough for such a crime?). He actually was trying to get over his addiction/illness. It did not show the effect of his actions on his victim. However, at one point in the movie, we do see that not only does sexual abuse traumatize the victim, but Bacon’s character is actually aware of it. Unfortunately, the director cut out one of the better scenes (see the deleted scenes if you rent the movie). He’s a monster, but the monster seems to find redemption. The movie never tries to rationalize what the character did as so many other Hollywood/liberal talking points would. The book Lolita also does a good job of showing some redemption without rationalization towards the end.
There is a BIG difference between movies that show redemptive characteristics of the monsters they portray without rationalizing or minimizing the harm they’ve done and movies that make the monster into a victim or hero (like Motorcycle Diaries).
Dear Tom W,
My heart is hurting for you after reading your post, I hope and pray that you may come to some measure of peace after having to endure what you have. Even though there are those in society that are trying to make such horrible things acceptable please take comfort in the fact, whether or not you belive, that God does not take such things lightly and the monster that does not deserve to be called a father will be judged, harshly, one day for what he has done.
Matthew 11:28-30
“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: AND YE SHALL FIND REST UNTO YOUR SOULS. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Tom W: I understand. I have battled my desire for solitude for a lifetime and it has been overwhelming because it was my only peace. I have absolutely no faith in the psychiatric/counseling field. The day that my grandfather died was the first day that I can remember experiencing a moment of peace. Of course that didn’t fix much, but it was something.
I know that it sounds like a cliche but the only freedom that I have gained was through Christ. I understand how finding the island of calm that you sound like you have is relief, but God made you for so much more. I had to separate myself from my entire family to be able to turn off the demonic messages from my past and that hurts, but it has been worth it. I am more whole than I once was.
Tom W, I can not imagine your path, but wish you well on it. I tend to prefer precission, though, so I feel it must be pointed out that while both are wrong, there is a distinct difference between one who sexually abuses a pre-pubescent child, one who abuses a sexually mature youngster and one who seduces a sexually mature youngster. I think John’s main point is that some in Hollywood seem to be trying to portray especially the third as normal or even healthy. I say not just Hollywood, but consider, for example, the infamous The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could from the Vagina Monologues (in which a 13 year-old girl has a “positive healing” sexual experience with an older woman).
They look at this sort of adult-yougster sexual interaction and try to play it off as OK using the thin veneer that the teen was compliant or wanted it. What is missing from the equation is any sense of adult responsibility to see a developing situation and to do what is right. Believing that these sorts of experiences are “positive healing” or “makes her stronger” is really nothing more than an excuse to dodge what otherwise would be the responsible thing to do, that is, to turn away and deny your own hedonistic desires for the benefit of the youngster. Instead, they want to play at being a teenager again, free to indulge, experiment and even make mistakes with no responsibility or retribution.
In other words, it’s Peter Pan writ large and rated R.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the kids that participate in these types of movies? Simulating these behaviors is almost as damaging to these actors as it is to the people who they portray. Hollywood is full of child star stories. Maybe the parts they played had something to do with it? Or just growing up in the Hollywood liberal let everyone do what they want atmosphere?
“When someone tells you that child rape is not a soul-destroying event, all you need to know is that the person is either a pedophile or wants to be one.
Don’t let anybody convince you otherwise.
Sep 29, 2008 – 3:44 am”
Tom’s got this exactly. I’ve recovered somewhat, but abuse scars our souls like a knife on a tree.
we can thank Kinsey, the legal system, the frankfurt school and may we have a special applause for Luckaks of hungary!!!! take a bow gentlmen…
My wife and I both believed this would be the next frontier of Hollywood. If you define progressive as moving away from established norms, as it has the last 40 years, then this was the obvious choice. The arguments are easy. Are all 17 year olds the same emotional age? Who are you to deny a mature/curious person sexual fulfillment? Society is well on the way to anarchy.
I would like an Actor in Hollywood to try a really despicable character, in their eyes. Play a conservative christian in a positive light. Something that is nonexistent in modern movies. If gays are really 10% of the population, then why are they so prevalent in T.V.’s and movies? I would like to see some real acting. Ellen playing a Catholic mother who loves her church and her husband.
They won’t do this because modern media is now propaganda and not just a reflection of society like they claim.
Sorry to post again but I forgot my most important point. As a son of a mother who was repeatedly abused as a child I despise the premise of “child rape is not a soul-destroying event”. My family had to deal with a soul that never felt free and never could trust men. How do you think a son raised in that environment faired. This is the worst kind of lie, because it gives cover to those who may have not considered this most selfish of acts.
Yet, schnargley was right. The APA is also pushing the envelope and testing the waters of toleration and fuzzy’mindedness of the American public by legitimizing pedophilia or “intergenerational sex” through its contrived “studies” and “expert opinions.” And if no one else is going to mention it, I will mention the well’known dirty little secret of the gay agenda – much homsexuality is attributable to an older male introducing a younger one, mostly preteen or very young teen pubescents, to sex. Many of the founders of the gay movement were open pederasts, like Ginsberg.
Trangbang68….I figured as much from Schnargley….He probably loves to read these comments. It must be the highlight of his day.
BMoon:
“I will mention the well’known dirty little secret of the gay agenda – much homsexuality is attributable to an older male introducing a younger one, mostly preteen or very young teen pubescents, to sex. Many of the founders of the gay movement were open pederasts, like Ginsberg.”
I will be forced to mention the (now) well known, but once unknown hidden secret of the largest of the world’s anti-gay organization’s, the Roman Catholic Church. Oh wait. I don’t need to mention it. You know what I’m talking about.
Thanks for the canned response, ThomasP. Does that mean Ginsberg wasn’t into that? I am a bear of very little brain, y’see, and your logical circomlocutions is a puzzlement to me.
Ok, from tens of thousands of movies, you isolate 3 to label Hollywood as advancing pedophilia? In a free exchange of ideas you’re going to have detritus. I don’t scream bloody murder because you idiots have a creationist museum. Most media is crap – agreed. Turn it off. It’s that easy.
Krusty, do movies reflect society or is society shaped by them?
What we are talking about here are trends, how they relate to societal views and what they mean in the long run.
Get off this comment and go watch some detritus…I think that Bill Maher’s cr*p is opening this weekend…sounds like it is right up your alley.
“I will be forced to mention the (now) well known, but once unknown hidden secret of the largest of the world’s anti-gay organization’s, the Roman Catholic Church.”(ThomasP)
Yes, Thomas, you inability to follow a line of argument and cogent reasoning is quite evident. Yes, too, the RCC has an inner contradiction – discouraging both heterosexual and homosexual attractions, amongst it’s priests, at least. (My Catholic father had no prob with the hetro part, as myself and all my siblings can attest to.)
“Gay culture does not grant the pedophile movement general acceptance. It does, however, offer a peripheral credibility to this movement which pedophilia has never been granted in the culture at large. Members of NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) march in some gay pride parades.
The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” in a generally approving manner. (Back issues of this journal can be ordered by calling Haworth Press at 1-800-HAWORTH.)
Discrimination Against a Minority
The vast majority of the articles in “Male Intergenerational Intimacy” argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. In the foreword, Dr. Gunter Schmidt closes by saying that “Each individual case must be looked upon on its own merits…the threat to make all pedophile acts punishable by law can barely be labeled civilized…it implies discrimination and persecution of a minority and should be abolished.” (p. 4)
Another group of writers (two psychologists and a lawyer–Sandfort, Brongersma, and Naerssen) argue that “the current social climate makes it rather difficult to look at [pedophilic] relationships in an objective way.” (p.5)”
AndrewJ:
“Thanks for the canned response, ThomasP. Does that mean Ginsberg wasn’t into that? I am a bear of very little brain, y’see, and your logical circomlocutions is a puzzlement to me.”
I have no idea what Ginsberg was into, although I don’t recall him having been convicted of any such thing. My gut tells me it’s an urban legend, but the real point is that it’s irrelevant. It’s like saying that the social conservative movement is as flaming and desperate in their water closets as Larry Craig. It’s like saying that if a racist votes for McCain, anyone who votes for McCain is a racist. It’s as illogical as claiming that the conservative movement is all about harboring drug addicts because of Limbaugh (brought to you by the makers of Oxycontin — Oxycontin, for that Megadittoes Rush.) It’s called the Fallacy of Composition. Read it, learn it, eschew it, at all costs.
BVMoon:
“Yes, Thomas, you inability to follow a line of argument and cogent reasoning is quite evident.”
A line of argument and cogent reasoning is what you call that? Well, you know what Lincoln said about dogs with 5 legs. It was not a line of argument and cogent reasoning; it was an attempt to use the Fallacy of Composition to slander the homasekshul movement and allege they have a conspiracy to make us all accept pederasty.
Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder. Does that mean anyone who believes in “that which governs least, governs best” wants to be free to own slaves?
I have no idea what you are quoting from in your last post, but why does it have credibility to you? Or, more importantly, why should it to us?
The vast majority of Hollywodd producers, directers and actors, are perverted monsters. Their goal is to “educate” the great unwashed, namely the general public, to accept this perversion as normal, acceptable and desireable. They are pieces of smelly, steaming shit. I truely believe they are subhuman monsters, subsisting on the pain of others, fit to live only in Hollywood or the Castro district of San Fran-sicko.
I’ll pass on that movie, and any others like it. I’m going to see this one instead:
http://www.americancarol.com/
Re Brian in Idaho’s comment:
“I would like an Actor in Hollywood to try a really despicable character, in their eyes. Play a conservative christian in a positive light. Something that is nonexistent in modern movies.”
I just saw the well-made thriller “Trans-Siberian”, which does indeed show a conservative Christian character in a positive light (played by Woody Harrelson, no less – in an ironic return to his wholesome breakout role in “Cheers”, after years of playing deranged, violent psychopaths). You can take this, if you like, as the pendulum turning the other way, although it might also be the exception which proves the rule.
For my part, I am still waiting to see a film where an average suburban teen is embarrassed by, and longs to escape from, the antics of his morally dissolute left-wing parents. Naturally, we’ve all seen thousands of versions of the story where the youth’s mom and dad are repressed, distant conservative religious fanatics who don’t understand their offspring’s nonconformist, creative instincts. I understand why Hollywood types love THAT story so much – after all, for most of them, it’s autobiographical. But if you just ask yourself for one second: why is the repressed-liberal narrative favored by a factor of 1000 to 1 over the repressed-conservative story? Is it because the repressed-liberal version is 1000 times more common IN REALITY? Give me a break. In the real world, I suspect that the true ratio is 50-50 or close to it, and this simple observation shows the Hollywood ideological bias as clearly as anything ever can.
This is why I haven’t been to a movie in over five years. I won’t give Hollywood my money.
When I first heard the term ‘gay rights’, I chuckled and thought to myself ‘That’ll never happen’. From time to time I hear rumblings about rights of varying kinds for pedophiles.
Lowering the age of consent, gay scout masters and scientific papers indicating the consensual man-boy sexual relationships are not harmful are 2 examples of the ‘softening up’ process of public opinion.
What’s the next right? Bestiality? I’ll go for that! Barney Fwank trying to talk a bear into a BJ.