Yesterday I came across a TV discussion about a controversial movie and it made quite an impression on me. The movie "Hounddog" is causing a bit of a stir in the commentary world. It stars Dakota Fanning, a very talented and very young actress. During this movie, her character is raped. She took part in the scene, there was no "stunt" double. She wore a body suit. Apparently, there was no nudity. People who have viewed it say the scene is rather graphic and done in poor taste. The problem with it is that Ms Fanning is 12 years old. She is a minor in every sense of the word. Now, there is wrongness on multiple levels there, and I’ll deal with that later, but what bothered me about the program I was watching was the debate. Apparently, the argument centers around whether or not movie distributors should pick up the film and show it in their respective theaters, or basically whether or not people should be allowed to see the film.
Think about that for a moment. The discussion here is whether or not we have a right to see this trash. If that doesn’t exemplify how malfunctioned America’s moral compass has become, then I don’t know what does. Here is a movie in which a 12 year old actress engages in a sex scene, and a rather graphic one at that. Umm…isn’t that child pornography? Isn’t that illegal? Yet, we want to discuss whether or not movie theaters have the right to show the film to consumers? At what point did we venture off the path of normalcy into this surreal world of misguided priorities?
Personally, I don’t give a damn if viewers think they have a right to see this trash. What I want to know is at what point do we investigate Fanning’s parents for child endangerment? At what point do we bring charges against the director, producer and studio for filming this? At what point do we immediately get Fanning involved in counseling to help her deal with the problems that could come from this later in life? And yet, we want to debate on whether theaters should be showing the film?
Regardless of what anyone thinks, Fanning is a minor. And even though she is intelligent and mature for her age, she still lacks the emotional maturity to decide whether or not she can handle a graphic sex scene on film. No, that’s the parents’ responsibility, and it’s the director’s job to ensure that the young actress is not exploited in any way. It seems they both failed here, even if Fanning said she was comfortable with it. I will be extremely disappointed if this were allowed to slide without some sort of investigation. I think it’s fair to be concerned about this girl’s safety. At the very least, child protective services should take a look into matters. We have animal rights people overseeing movies to ensure that dogs don’t get harmed in movies, but we allow a 12 year old girl to engage in a sex scene? Unbelievable!
I’d be willing to bet my traditionalist mindset that Fanning will be immersed in chemical dependence before she’s 16. The young mind just can’t handle certain adult things, and many of those things come with celebrity status, not to mention the graphic sex scene she agreed to film. But what does Hollywood care? Seems to me this is their next great cause, and Fanning is just a tool in promoting that cause. They succeeded in getting homosexuality accepted in mainstream America, so why not do the same for child molestation? Seems to me, this is nothing more than the pedophile version of "Brokeback Mountain".
I think we as a society need to start making some choices here. Is sex with a child acceptable behavior? If not, then we need to put a stop to this, not just in movies but all over the country. We need to punish it, harshly, before the progressive far Left succeeds in adding this to their moral relativist ideas. A 12 year old girl has no business – NONE – in engaging in ANY kind of sexual behavior, whether it’s part of a movie, or in a body suit, or for a good cause, or whatever other lame rationalization they can pin on it. This is simply unacceptable. We wouldn’t tolerate it in our neighbor’s bedroom, so why is it OK on the motion picture screen? Her parents should be investigated, and those involved in filming should as well. Hopefully, Fanning won’t suffer any long-term damage from this, but can anyone honestly say that she won’t? If not, then you should join me in the call for action here.
24 comments:
It is so pathetic to me that a grown man finds it acceptable to compare homosexuality and pedophilia. Of all you wrote, that's really the only thing that alerts me. I have read several different articles about this movie, some from Fanning's point of view, and all accounts so far point to the fact that no crimes were committed, that it was done decently and that there is no nudity whatsoever, as well as the fact that she understood the story and the message. I understand your point, but I still think the most alarming thing about everything you said is the point I opened this comment with.
Allisoni, at what point did I "compare" homosexuality to pedophilia? My point was that Hollywood is intent on getting certain behaviors accepted in the mainstream as "normal" or "natural" behaviors. They did it with homosexuality, and now they're trying the same with pedophilia.
But since you brought it up, do you have any evidence that homosexuality is NOT sexually deviant behavior? It's been studied in depth, and no one has found anything suggesting this to be "natural".
What I find alarming is that someone can consider a 12 year engaging in a sex scene and make the comment that "that it was done decently and that there is no nudity whatsoever, as well as the fact that she understood the story and the message". A 12 year old can't engage in a sexual act "decently", nor are they capable of understanding the emotional consequences from it. That's why it's illegal to have sex with a 12 year old. There is nothing decent about it. Her parents were negligent, and so was everyone involved in the filming.
Would you have allowed your daughter to do this? If your answer is no, then it's obviously wrong unless you practice moral relativism of your own. If your answer is yes, then you need to work on your parenting skills.
Robert and John - Thanks for telling it like it actually is.
Hollywood is indeed hell-bent on forcing sexual sins down our throats until we the public will one day find these things to be acceptable behavior, when the exact opposite is the truth.
To Hell with Hollywood.
Only a liberal-minded person could fathom that the rape of a child is a good thing, even if there were no nudity. Those responsible for this movie are in my view, guilty of producing child pornography,and should be prosecuted accordingly.
As for the young girl, her mind has apparently been compromised, or should I say brainwashed by liberalism, into believing that what she did in this movie is an OK thing when in fact, she did something horrible.
Her parent(s) should be ashamed of themselves, and also prosecuted for allowing their minor daughter to be in a pornographic movie.
"They succeeded in getting homosexuality accepted in mainstream America, so why not do the same for child molestation? Seems to me, this is nothing more than the pedophile version of 'Brokeback Mountain'."
That is a blatant comparison, whether you will admit it or not.
This is NOT a "pornographic movie." It is pornographic if there is actual sex taking place, which there most certainly is NOT. Would I let my daughter do it? I don't have a daughter who is a brilliant actress at such a young age, and I don't think I would be interested in having a child in that business in the first place. There are parents who actually allow (or even themselves inflict) much worse things to happen to their children than starring in a film about sexual abuse.
Shame on you Allisoni. Saying that you find it "pathetic that a grown man....." You got personal and after reading John's blog, he has never gotten personal with you. If you can't have an adult conversation/debate without name calling and passing judgement, you should stay off the blog.
Hmmm. You dodged that question nicely. Seriously, if you had a daughter, would you allow her to be in this scene or not? For most people the answer is quite easy you know.
I said that I wouldn't have a child who is in this business. I'm pretty sure that answers the question.
I didn't call him any names. He is the one is who not mature enough to realize how out-of-date and unexceptable it is to place pedophelia and homosexuality on the same level. He is writing about things that undoubtedly stir up emotions in his readers, whether they agree with him or not. If he doesn't want comments he should probably disable that feature.
You're dodging the question. It's very simple. If this girl was your kid, would you have allowed her to do this scence? Yes or no? You can hardly debate the subject if you are unsure enough of your own stand not to answer that.
I wouldn't allow my daughter to be an actress at that age, so clearly that means she wouldn't be involved in that scene. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Allisoni, you continue to artfully dodge a simple question, which is typical for those who practice moral relativism. There are no absolute wrongs or rights for you guys...it's amazing. The fact is, you know this thing with Fanning is wrong, but you can't say it because the worst fear for a moral relativist is passing judgment on someone else's behavior. I have no problem calling something right or wrong, even though some may see it as "pathetic" or "immature".
Once again, I did not not compare homosexuality to pedophilia, saying so doesn't make that true. Not that I have a problem comparing the two. There is substantial evidence showing that homosexuality - like pedophilia - is a sexually deviant behavior. There is no evidence that is it a biologically "normal" human variant. This is what the evidence shows. Pointing it out doesn't make one immature. Refusing to acknowledge it does.
However, homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia in that there is no unwilling victim. SO there are similarities and differences, and yes it is an emotionally charged subject.
The point is, we live in a moral relativist society that seeks to gain acceptance for any and all behaviors, and Hollywood is leading the charge. Whether you're talking about adultery, homosexuality or pedophilia - the secular progressive segment of society wants all behavior to be accepted regardless of the consequences - and people like you who refuse to condemn it are doing nothing but enabling them.
It's a movie. She wasn't actually raped. Her parents and her agent and her teachers were on the set to monitor what was taking place. IT WASN'T REAL. Even though I would choose not to expose my own child to the movie business does not mean that Fanning's parents were intentionally exposing her to something they thought to be harmful to her. She is extremely successful and experienced for her age, and most 12 year old girls understand what rape is, or at least they should. It has already been stated that no crimes were committed in the making of this movie, it's not a film about child pornography, it's a film about sexual abuse, so certainly they weren't going to be treating it lik this behavior is normal or something she should go out and do all the time. I consider myself a very normal person, especially for my age group, so I am not one to sit back and think other people can do whatever they want--that isn't the case. But there is a problem with passing TOO MUCH judgement, or even any judgement at all, on people that you don't know and will never meet.
I wouldn't allow my daughter to be an actress at that age, so clearly that means she wouldn't be involved in that scene. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
You just will not answer this question will you? If you had a daughter and she was an actress, and you'd allowed her to be one, and she was under your control, would you or would you not allow her to do this scene? I can't gauge the extent of your opinion if you will not answer this question with a simple yes or no.
However, judging by your silence on this I'm gonna say your answer is no. There's nothing wrong with that. My answer would be Hell no! and I'll say that right now. Legal or not, there are moral ramifications to consider here. Allowing your daughter to participate in a scene like that at age 12 is not a good decision any way you cut it. However, condoning something you wouldn't do yourself is a double standered morally speaking.
And here's another question, was the amount of detail the scene is reported to have gone into neccessary, or was the director just some kind of wierdo? I'd see no reason for that kind of detail in the first place, would you?
Maybe you should see the film before you analyze it like that.
No thank you. Some people don't really enjoy the concept of child rape, especially not visually. Descriptions are more than enough to disgust me.
You haven't answered the question yet.
It's the same as Brokeback Mountain--people take all these shots at it while really not having a clue what it's about. Knowing a plot really means nothing, as it's an art form that can't be understood until it is experienced.
And yes, I did.
Allisoni, unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you've seen the film either. Yet you're willing to say that this scene was done decently and basically condone her parents' actions.
We don't have to see the movie because the content of the scene will do nothing to change our opinion that a 12 year old has no business doing sex scenes...period. I don't care if she wore a body suit or whatever else they say, it's still wrong. That's what morality is - the situation does NOT dictate the "right" or "wrong" of things.
Another thing, you say that the child was supervised by parents and teachers, but what about professionally? Was a child psychologist on scene to protect her mental health? I don't know, but seems like a good idea. I have, however, heard a child psychologist comment (after viewing the scene in question) that she may be at risk for long-term consequences from this, even though it was done under supervision, etc. That in itself is grounds for an investigation.
"Umm…isn’t that child pornography?"
Wow, a lot of comments here, John.
Before continuing, I really don't understand the attacks on Allisoni. She stated unequivocally that she would not let a child be in a scene like this because she would not let a child of hers be in the industry.
That's not moral relativism nor dodging the question, as I read it.
Now, to the movie:
1. I don't plan on seeing it, I don't care to see a rape scene of a child portrayed.
2. Having said that, I don't think that a rape scene (which is an act of violence, not a "sex scene") automatically makes this an exploitative scene or movie. From what little I've read, the point is to stand against the horror that is rape - and especially rape of children.
3. One can discuss or portray rape scenes without it being pornographic and indeed, in order to preach against it.
So, while I'm not comfortable with this notion, and would not allow a child of mine to do it, I don't think in and of itself it is an abusive concept. It may be or it may not be.
And to say that is not moral relativism. Do you think that every act of violence is a wrong? According to what you've said before, No, you don't. Does that make you a moral relativist?
Not necessarily. I would physically intervene to stop a fight, perhaps even restraining someone against their will to stop it. Inasmuch as one might call that violent, it is not an endorsement of violence. It does not make me a moral relativist.
In other words, just the broaching of a topic - especially in order to condemn a wrong - does not make one a moral relativist nor the broaching of the topic automatically wrong.
Or, put another way, do you think that if someone were to show - either in the news or in a dramatic film - the violence of terrorists, that they were wrong for doing so, because it is a tacit endorsement of the terrorism?
Were the makers of Flight 93 promoting terrorism and should that film have been prevented from being shown?
I think we agree that no, that's not the case at all.
Now, I don't want to see this particular movie because I'm willing to bet there's someone out there who might get some sort of sick thrill out of watching it. But that doesn't make the producers any more wrong for doing this than Flight 93's makers were wrong because there are those out there who'd find the movie a rallying cry for terrorism.
"An art form that cannot be fully understood until experienced?!"
Allisoni, you have got to be kidding me. It's a child rape scence. Let's call a spade a spade here. There isn't anything artistic about that.
She stated unequivocally that she would not let a child be in a scene like this because she would not let a child of hers be in the industry.
Yeah Dan, but in other words she's backing out of the question. If here daughter was in the same exact situation, would she let her do this scene? Instead she trys to say she wouldn't be in the situation. She won't answer directly.
As for your other points, you can in fact compare terrorism and child rape like you do. But I would point out we don't show people's heads getting cut off by terrorists on TV, so why should we show child rape in the movies?
I was talking about a movie in general, not about a rape scene. But even then, something can be much more powerful and carry a much bigger message depending on how it is done, and you can't really comment on it because you haven't seen it.
Also, just going back to the Brokeback Mountain thing, I really don't think that film did anything to help homosexuality be more accepted, considering that people like you who are so close-minded wouldn't dream of seeing it. Those who saw it didn't need to be told about the realities of homosexuality or learn anything about it.
Ok, one last comment and then I'm moving on. I appreciate the healthy discussion from both sides.
"One can discuss or portray rape scenes without it being pornographic and indeed, in order to preach against it."
You're absolutely right, but does it have to involve a child? Of course not. They can make their point in less dangerous ways.
To be clear, my position is that putting a 12 yr old in a sex scene or violence scene or whatever involves provocative touching - whether or not there is nudity, whether or not there are "safety" measures in place - is wrong. It's wrong in the private bedroom. It's wrong on a movie set. It's wrong EVEN if it's being done to condemn the act itself. It's simply wrong. Saying there are some conditions that would make it okay (ie, for a good cause) is, in fact, moral relativism. If we apply moral relativism here, then we're endorsing it in other situations and simply sending the wrong message.
Now, you're comparing this to violent films or terrorism films. I see your point, but I don't think the comparison fits unless you go further with it because filming those movies doesn't put the actors at risk. Filming a 12 yr old in a provocative manner with an adult does. When we make movies about terrorism, we're not actually flying planes into buildings with people in them to show how terrible terrorism is. We can say this scene was "just pretend" but is that how Fanning's mind will process it? There is no way to say that Ms Fanning will NOT suffer longterm problems from this. Any child psychologist with an objective mindset would agree.
Do I think violence is wrong? I think revenge is wrong. I try to base my morals on Biblical teaching, and I don't think the Bible outright condemns all violence - but it does condemn revenge, which often leads to violence. It also condemns murder.
Allisoni, if you feel "attacked" then accept my apologies. I don't intend to come across that way, but sometimes in this medium it may appear so. I DO take exception to being called "closed minded". I'm simply stating what the evidence shows. You are doing the same when you advocate for global warming - does that make you closed minded? Of course not. I think you should be careful of your labels in the future.
Ok, one last comment and then I'm moving on. I appreciate the healthy discussion from both sides.
"One can discuss or portray rape scenes without it being pornographic and indeed, in order to preach against it."
You're absolutely right, but does it have to involve a child? Of course not. They can make their point in less dangerous ways.
To be clear, my position is that putting a 12 yr old in a sex scene or violence scene or whatever involves provocative touching - whether or not there is nudity, whether or not there are "safety" measures in place - is wrong. It's wrong in the private bedroom. It's wrong on a movie set. It's wrong EVEN if it's being done to condemn the act itself. It's simply wrong. Saying there are some conditions that would make it okay (ie, for a good cause) is, in fact, moral relativism. If we apply moral relativism here, then we're endorsing it in other situations and simply sending the wrong message.
Now, you're comparing this to violent films or terrorism films. I see your point, but I don't think the comparison fits unless you go further with it because filming those movies doesn't put the actors at risk. Filming a 12 yr old in a provocative manner with an adult does. When we make movies about terrorism, we're not actually flying planes into buildings with people in them to show how terrible terrorism is. We can say this scene was "just pretend" but is that how Fanning's mind will process it? There is no way to say that Ms Fanning will NOT suffer longterm problems from this. Any child psychologist with an objective mindset would agree.
Do I think violence is wrong? I think revenge is wrong. I try to base my morals on Biblical teaching, and I don't think the Bible outright condemns all violence - but it does condemn revenge, which often leads to violence. It also condemns murder.
Allisoni, if you feel "attacked" then accept my apologies. I don't intend to come across that way, but sometimes in this medium it may appear so. I DO take exception to being called "closed minded". I'm simply stating what the evidence shows. You are doing the same when you advocate for global warming - does that make you closed minded? Of course not. I think you should be careful of your labels in the future.
"But I would point out we don't show people's heads getting cut off by terrorists on TV, so why should we show child rape in the movies?"
Well, this is why I'm not likely to go see it, as well as John's point about other options - including not using an actual child.
I find it questionable enough to think it a bad idea. My only point was that I wouldn't leap from "bad idea" to pornographic or illegal.
Ah okay, that makes sense. I wasn't saying it was illegal, just in really bad taste. And not artistic at all.
Post a Comment