Talk:Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Suggestion to Rename Article: Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema 2 American Beauty 3 Positive vs. negative portrayals 4 Pulp Fiction 5 Taxi driver 6 edits made 7 A Clockwork Orange 8 American Beauty, Article in general 9 Angyali üdvözlet (The Annunciation) 10 Renaming the article 11 Kids <3 Adults 12 Media personalities 12.1 Trivia

[edit] Suggestion to Rename Article: Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema

Given the complexity of the themes included in this film list, I think the article should be renamed "Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema". The reason to do so is that Pedophilia and Abuse do not by themselves capture everything of interest. It's really a genus-species issue. Some films that deal with child sexuality are not about abuse and are not about pedophilia. For example, You Are Not Alone, although it has a single short instance of adult/child sexuality, is more about youth sexuality in general. And so it has the distinction of both belonging and not-belonging on this list. I think the focus on pedophilia and abuse limits the presentation of the films in this category, and also pointlessly politicizes the article. I propose the following, then:

1. Change the article heading to Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema

2. Break the article up into relevant themes, for example:

a. Child Sexual Abuse: For films that depict or conceptualize adult/minor sexual relations in a negative way.

b. Pedophilia: For films that deal with pedophilia, but in a more ambivalent or positive way.

c. Youth Sexuality: For films that focus more on the desires or viewpoint of children and adolescents.

d. Implicit Themes: For films that deal with the subject implicitly, or tangentally.

I suggest finally that films should be fit into multiple categories if their themes are multiple, such as the aforementioned film, You Are Not Alone. 66.130.41.29 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I add the following comments: Changing the article name to Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema would enable this article to be merged with Pederastic filmography. That is one more reason to rename. 66.130.41.29 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I've read the recent comments on the article. As you may know, I've contributed a very significant amount of content to this article and my comments are in this contaxct. The article could, in my view, be titled Pedophilia in films as that covers every single film referenced. Pedophilia (i.e. sexual attraction towards children) covers abusive/non abusive relationships; legal/illegal activities; positive/negative impact on children etc. etc. Child sexual abuse was added to the title by another contributor some months ago. I didn't fight it.

The article is not intended to cover 'youth' in cimema or the topic of sexuality'. If this is what you are interested in, then why not write another article? This article must remain neutral and so I think it would be a disaster to try to divide the films into positive/negative or other themes.

I did write an introductory series of paragraphs, but these were removed as being original research. Tony 17:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] American Beauty

I believe the girl in American Beauty is 2nd year high school student. She is definitely not under age. Medico80 10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added American Beauty for the following reasons: (1) the girl character was ~16, which is only a year or so after puberty; (2) I googled the terms <spacey "american beauty" pedophilia> and got almost a thousand hits, all descibing the behavior of Spacey's character as pedophilia; (3) she was a minor, which is considered statutory rape in the USA, and the idea of her being "forbidden fruit" seems to have something to do with her age. I also realize that the term pedophile is sometimes restricted to pre-pubescents; but, as the pedophilia wiki article states, "In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents."Matthew Fadoul 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well well, ok then. But in many people's mind, including mine, there is something in between paedophilia and sex with a person of legal age. Having sex with a person under Age_of_consent may lead to criminal charges, but not charge of child abuse (in most countries). And Spacey's character is not really "abusing" the girl... Medico80 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was American Beauty removed from the list? As the heading states, This article is about pedophilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse in movies/films. Epheobophilia is a sexual attraction to girls going through puberty, as opposed to pedophilia, which is an attraction to pre-pubescent girls. Therefore, American Beauty does belong in this list because Thora Birch's character is somewhere around 16 (Thora was 17), meaning she is underage and she is going through the later stages of puberty, which would qualify Kevin Spacey's attraction to her, whether there was abuse or not, as ephebophilia.

141.224.232.207 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the girl was well through puberty, by any definition of the term. I think also that we need to consider the context of the infatuation and there is no suggestion that Lester Burnham is attracted to pubertal girls. He is attracted to this fully physically developed girl who is, however, definitely underage. On the other hand, as you feel strongly, why not add it back on to the list - I won't remove it. Tony 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Tony

You make a good point, that although Lester's attraction to Angela wasn't pedophilia by nature, she is still underage. Although I don't consider it in any way to be pedophilia or child abuse, I figure there are others who would see it that way, or as ephebophilia, so I added in back on the list. Also, I meant to say Mena Suvari's character, who I believe was also 16 or 17. 141.224.232.207 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Positive vs. negative portrayals

I believe that "sexual abuse" is not an accurate description of a lot of fictional portrayals of adult-child sex interactions. Considering the whole issue has always been very controversial since the end of Hellenism (there might be a little societal change to that during the 1960s and 1970s however that went back to traditional attitudes pretty soon during the 1980s), I'd suppose we're mostly dealing with two different social or political agendas expressed in such works, either to one side or the other. After all, it takes a lot to actually publish any work that does not portray sexuality between children and adults as inherently maltreating, so there must be strong views conflicting with such a notion with those people doing so. As for the other side, intending to pass on the opposite approach, I suppose it's quite obvious those works are made and published in order to raise social and political awarement issues.

That's why I'd opt for sorting those works in two categories within this article, one portraying its events as positive, the other as negative, with those sub-sections that are already present, as we're dealing with conflicting agendas. Neutral accounts are very rare, especially in fiction. --TlatoSMD 02:16, 11 August (CEST)

I agree to a point. The article shifts effortlessly and without comment between pedophilia and abuse. But not all of these films portray abuse, and not everyone believes pedophilia is by its nature, and always abusive. For example, Murmer of the Heart (Le Souffle au coeur), does not portray his experiences as abusive. There are others that have an ambivalent presentation, such as For a Lost Soldier (Voor een Verloren Soldaat). Of course, many of the films DO present abusive situations.

I think instead of sorting films into negative and positive, the page should have a longer introduction explaining the complexity of the issue. The article should let the audience decide what is abusive and what is not, and which films depict abuse and which depict something else. Short synopses of the films should indicate what the tone of the works are. 66.130.41.29 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated my comments after looking through the list and writing a short introduction. I believe the article should be renamed to something more general: Children, Youth and Sexuality in the Cinema. 66.130.41.29 23:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction

I intrigued as to the allusions to paedophillia in Kill Bill. on the Kill Bill wiki page there are no references, and from memory I can't remember any references. Necrophilia (or whatever the equivlent for having with someone in a coma) certainly, but no more than that.

[edit] Taxi driver

I see Taxi Driver now moved to "minor theme". I object - the 12 year old prostitute is a main character of the movie, and her rescue is the climax. Medico80 15:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree. If pedophilia was a major theme of the film, it might have been about a sexual relationship between Travis and Iris. Or it might have been about how Iris coped with being a prostitute. Or maybe it might have been about how Travis saved Iris from the evil pedophiles. But that wasn't it, either. I know you disagree with me on that last point, but I think within the context of the film, the tone is ambivalent about the ethical motivations of Travis. And that is part of the larger theme of the film: he could have killed a politician, or he could have killed the pimp and pedophile john. And it was a flip of the coin as to which end he came to. So, yes, pedophilia is in the film, but I don't think it's a major aspect of the film, even though it is part of the climax of the film. 66.130.41.29 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The War Zone

Where is Tim Roth's directorial debut, sexual abuse is the main theme of that film.

[edit] edits made

Your various comments have been noted and changes made 13:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] A Clockwork Orange

Why is A Clockwork Orange on this list? There is no child abuse or pedophilia displayed or even hinted at in the film. Although the book contains a scene where Alex rapes two underage girls, in the film it was changed so that the girls were older and it was consensual. Whoever added A Clockwork Orange must have been confusing the book and film. If nobody has any objections, I will remove it from the list. 141.224.232.207 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Beauty, Article in general

American Beauty's Lester Burnham is demonstrated to have an attraction to one young woman--his daughter's friend--and while his daughter strongly disapproves of his feelings toward her friend, I do not recall any part of the film which indicates that Mena Suvari's "Angela" is too young to consent to sexual intercourse.

There is no good reason to believe that Lester's feelings toward Angela constitute a 'philia', and it is difficult to argue that there is any 'child sexual abuse', especially given influence Angela herself has over Lester.

Lastly, Lester decides not to have intercourse with her when she states that she is a virgin (contrary to what she tells her schoolmates).

Also damning is that in the American Beauty article (which seems fairly thorough) there is no use of the terms 'pedophilia' or 'ephebophilia' or any of their derivatives. Except of course in categorization of the article, which leads one here to 'pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films'.

So I removed American Beauty from the list.

But I do have other concerns about this article.

For most readers the title of this article contains a redundancy, but it is not terribly important that the article distinguish between child sexual abuse and pedophilia. What's important is that the article then mentions ephebophilia as another quality a film may have for inclusion on this list of films.

Ephebophilia is at least partially legal in nearly every jurisdiction worldwide, according to the World Health Organization definition of 'adolescent' (10-19), and people do not usually find relationships between adults and older adolescents to be necessarily or inherently harmful or deviant, especially when the adult was very recently an adolescent himself (ex: a college senior dating a college freshman). These things are generally untrue with pedophilia and with sexual abuse of a child (and sexual abuse in general).

I'm simply saying that the title of this article doesn't really conform with the content if Mysterious Skin and American Beauty are treated similarly.

I agree with your comments on American Beauty. It has been in and out at least once before. I also don't like the word ephebophilia at all, but some other Wikipedians do. Tony 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Angyali üdvözlet (The Annunciation)

There is no pedophilia in Angyali üdvözlet (The Annunciation). In some scenes, children are nude, but there are nude children or adults in a lot of european films, it is not a reason to qualify these films as pornography or pedophilia. Nudity is not obligatorily sexual. So if you want to list nudity in films, you should create a new article. Username9 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a movie I have seen. The web site [1] would seem to indicate boy-abuse, but is not clear if this is sexual. If you are sure, then please delete it from the list (or move it to the sub-category of minor theme. Tony 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

I've seen it. This is an adaptation of the Bible only with children. There is one nude scene, when a boy and a girl are playing Adam and Eve in the Eden (probably during 10 minutes), they eat an apple, and they kiss each other. They are nude because the characters are nude in the original book, it's not sexual at all ;) Username9 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the article

The relationship between pedophilia (preferential sexual attraction to prepubescents) and CSA (a broad category that encompasses straightforward sex with children, right through to violent attacks that have nothing to do with philia) is too weak. I would also suggest that it is either biased against pedophilic interests (via the said association), or at best is reflecting that association, which is a product of our current culture, and therefore better covered under a more general and timeless heading.

I suggest: Depictions of child sex and pedophilia in films --Jim Burton 06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim: I am certainly not trying to show a POV on the morality of adult child relationships. The article is about pedophilia and I would be very happy with Pedophilia in films, but others have said they would prefer the current title. There are, for instance, many movies featuring adults and under-age (though sexually mature) girls and boys. These are generally not listed here, though the inclusive nature of Wikipedia culture means that there cannot be hard and fast rules, for the very reasons you give, that different countries, cultures, eras etc. have differeing views on definitions. Tony 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

Since films reflect the current cultural standing, it is inevitable that they will depict sex between minors and adults as overwhelmingly violent, etc. Violent rape and mutilation have nothing to do with pedophilia (unless the script attempts to bend nature). So there we have one problem - we are looking at depictions, and this must be taken note of. The use of 'abuse' could go either way; in that it is how adult-child sex is depicted, yet need not be described as an essential factor of adult-child sex, in a neutral encyclopedia. But most of all, what we need is a title that attends to the fact that pedophilia and CSA are only this closely related, due to their depiction alongside each other --Jim Burton 18:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually very few of the films show any violence. All films are depictions so I don't really believe the word adds anyhting. This article is one of a series I have created - the others covering fiction (should be literature), theatre and songs - the newest one. Adult-child sex (putting to one side the thorny issue of post-pubertal children) is definitely child sexual abuse. I have kept non-abusive and abusive pedophilia together as I think there is value in showing the spectrum of adult-child relationships. Tony 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

Of course all films are depictions, but not to recognise this in the title would be to ignore the fact that hidden issues like this are far more subject to artistic licence than more simplistic themes. We must also note that the association between pedophilia and CSA (or CS) is subject to this parralel depiction, and this is the reason for their mentoning together. Maybe you should consider changing the names of the whole series.

'Adult-child sex (putting to one side the thorny issue of post-pubertal children) is definitely child sexual abuse.'

Your POV. See the first three words in your quote for the proper encyclopedic phrase. Legislators, psychologists and opinionated others do not have ultimate authority on encyclopedic definitions. Therefore, if any of the films depict nonviolent sex betwen adult and child, 'CSA' can only be mentioned alongside 'depictions', and 'CS' would be preferable. --Jim Burton 10:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, Jim. If adult-child sexual activity occurs in a film and that film is set in a country/time when that activity is defined in law as CSA, then it is CSA, irrespective of whether it is non-violent, consensual, beneficial or whatever. I am particlularly referring to North America, Europe and Australasia. I am less familiar with the situation in other continents. There is also the issue that adult-child sex covers only a few aspects of CSA. If you want to write an article that promotes your views on an encyclopaedic definition you should go ahead and see if the Wiki editors are happy. There's no reason why you cannot create a new article. Tony 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

I will clearly need support to make an edit. I think that this can be adequately framed as a dispute between legal absolutism and objectivism. Of course, we now often laugh at old 'encyclopedic' and 'informational' texts that made the mistakes of legal, medical, moral absolutism in their time. This is what I fear about the title of this article, and a lot of other articles. Any support would be welcome --Jim Burton 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC):

I'm off skiing now. Have a good Christmas vacation, Tony 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Kids <3 Adults

I removed Ek Chotisi Love Story from the list after noticing it was here when I created the page because (although I haven't seen the film) what I know is that it is about unrequited love. A boy liking an older lady is by no means pedophilia or abuse when there is nothing in return. It seems a bunch of these films. We should fix this... maybe it should be named "love relationships between adults and children in film" or ... whatnot... but... I didn't want to delete it since many others don't seem to fit. gren グレン 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media personalities

The following section was removed:

[edit] Trivia

• Actor and director Woody Allen was accused in 1992 by his partner Mia Farrow after she discovered his secret affair with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Farrow accused him of being a pedophile (Previn was 16, 35 years younger than Allen) and of abusing their seven-year-old daughter - a charge that was not upheld in court.
• Director Roman Polanski fled the United States after his arrest for engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor

The issue for debate is whether a section on personalities in the film industry fits within this article. Any views? Tony 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

See also Talk:Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs for a similar issue.

I originally removed the above section under the following rationale:

• The articles' names are "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films" and "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs". This leads me to the conclusion that the scope of the article is; films(/songs) who contain the subject of pedophillia within their content. Thus the above section, being the subject of personalities accused of pedophilic relationships in the real world, is off topic and out of the scope of this article. They would be more suited to a discussion of personalities accused of pedophilia. -- Although I find that kind of "outing" of personalties outside the academic scope of an encyclopedia and in general not a good idea.
• A minor concern with this article alone that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (ie. no triva).

--Monotonehell 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I take a different view, though I think trivia is not the right word. There is no outing involved. The facts are already mentioned in other Wiki articles. If they were large sections, then I agree they could have its own articles, but otherwise I think it is relevant and encyclopaedic. Tony 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Tony

How do you answer the point that the section is off the article's topic? The article's name is "...in films", not "...by personalities". Your precedent would allow any tangential factoid to be added to any article. I think the only ways this tangential subject can be included in this article would be a See also: section pointing to another article on that subject OR; if there exists a dramatisation of a personality's actions, in which case the film would be added to the body of the list. --Monotonehell 11:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of posting our difference of opinion here was to get third party views, not for a re-hash of our POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sandel (talk • contribs) 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I have a position, I have reasoning. Your position is just "I disagree". What is your reasoning? I see that someone else has a similar position to me as they have removed the same section on one of the articles. --Monotonehell 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)