The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children
by John NolteThe vocal, sanctimonious Free-Polanski uproar is merely a symptom of an entertainment culture infected with a moral cancer – a culture that regularly practices up on the screen what we’ve heard them preach this last week on behalf of a confessed child rapist.
Last year Miramax released “Doubt,” a high-profile piece of Oscar-bait starring Academy Award winners’ Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Streep plays a puritanical nun on a moral crusade to expose a Priest (Hoffman) who she believes is sexually abusing a 12 year-old boy. Both characters are portrayed as unsympathetic (especially Streep’s) but in just a couple scenes the boy’s working-class mother (Mrs. Miller, played by Viola Davis) is established as the moral center of the film – the only one truly interested in the welfare of her child. When Mrs. Miller’s informed that her son’s being molested, the Moral Center Of The Film responds that her 12 year-old boy is gay, a social outcast, and beaten regularly by his homophobic father … so maybe the best option for him is a sexual relationship with a forty-something child predator.
Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, and written and directed by Oscar-winner Alan Ball, last year’s “Towelhead” is a film Roman Polanski might have seen many, many times while wearing a rain coat. The protagonist is 13 year-old Jasira (played by the then barely eighteen Summer Bishil) and the story surrounds her sexual abuse at the hands of a number of men, including Eckhart’s Gulf War Vet. Rather than the repeated abuse damaging the young girl, the filmmaker portrays the rapes and molestations as a healthy and sexually liberating experience. More than once the audience is “treated” to lingering shots of Jasira’s bare legs as she discovers the joys of the orgasm while masturbating to photographs of naked women.
Kate Winslet won last year’s Best Actress Oscar for her role in “The Reader,” in which she plays a “sympathetic” Nazi guilty of mass murder who seduces and then engages in a steamy sexual affair with a 15 year-old boy. The sex scenes between this mature woman and a child lean heavily on the erotic, as opposed to the creepy. (The “sympathetic Nazi” issue we’ll save for another post.)
Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.
Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy. Hollywood deviants never gathered together to plan for a slate of films aimed at a drip-drip campaign designed to dull our moral outrage towards the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s worse than that. We’re up against a culture; the same culture that can’t quite grasp why a child rapist should have to serve prison time for a crime he’s confessed to.
And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”
On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.
In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.
The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.
Whether it’s true or not that seventy-five years ago Clark Gable nearly bankrupted the t-shirt industry by not wearing one in “It Happened One Night,” what is true is that billions of dollars are spent annually by advertisers convinced sound and images can alter behavior. You’d have to be a fool to make an argument against the persuasive powers of moving images, but those fools do exist. Most of them are liars.
The Hollywood Left is many things but they’re not fools and they fully understand the power of the medium under their control. Certainly, damning everyone who works in the entertainment world would be unfair, but this is also a culture where only a handful of “names” were willing to speak out against the pro-Polanski movement – including many Leftists who have never been shy about speaking out in the past.
The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the most vocal from this current crop seem all too ready to tarnish that legacy as they target our children for profit and worse.
Is it too much to ask of the Hollywood Left that they show as much intolerance towards the sexualization of young children as they do towards conservatives and Christians?
That question has already been answered.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
536 Comments
Pedophilia is considered absolutely normal in liberal-land. This is the reason we will all see soon enough how the Obama administration will attempt to make it a societal norm as part of his "change" for America. Hang on to your morals folks….it's going to be a horrific ride.
When the Hollywood elite read news stories about child molesters and sexual predators, they aren't horrified; they're taking notes. It's not a crime story, it's a "how to" lesson.
I wish it were as simple as blaming Hollywood for the moral decay we see around us. Hollywood is a big offender, maybe the biggest offender, but it is not the only source of this decay. The constant drum beat of insulting all religous people is another and this comes mainly from the Intelligent Athiest, an oxymoron if there ever was one. The enlightened left thinks that they are the best judge of wht is moral and they do not even have any standards. The old refrain from the 60's comes to mind,"If it feels good do it." This mentality, from the anything goes 60's is still prevelant today and is just as corrosive.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy. Andy said: RT @bighollywood: The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children http://bit.ly/yRS8T [...]
Hollywood tries to mainstream any sort of abhorrent behavior. On the Left Coast, wrong is right and down is up, us silly old traditional folk are the aberration.
Although I knew that Hollywood has different moral standards than I do, I am feeling sick to my stomach after reading that article. All I want to do is protect my children from these demented people.
a couple of years ago Dakota Fanning was in some movie about a child who was raped. and on the promo tour she said "I'm ready for rape" I about crashed my car. I realize she was talking about the role, but what 12 year old is ready to portray that?
That is one of the worst crimes that can be inflicted upon another. and when it is with children…a special place in the 7th circle of hell. I'm willing to consider capital punishment.
Your comment abut Hollywood having a proud history opposing homophobia is a bit of normalization itself. We live under a constant drumbeat to accept it as normal behavior when it just isn't. The statistics of sexually transmitted diseases, drug use, and depression, are far higher with homosexual men. It is not because of homophobia. The rates are worse in more tolerant areas. Normalizing homosexuality is not doing anybody any favors. Otherwise, a good article.
"The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism."
This is as much BS as is the idea Hollywood cares about saving the children.
To Hollywood, racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism are just stage props used to sell their bogus soap of compassion; like the phony-baloney fake columns they erected to sell evil creatures.
The fact is, Hollywood preys upon children because they look at children as their personal play toys for soulless, empty, paper-mached ,narcissistic, self-indulgent skeevy creeps.
America, it is time to pull your collective head out of Kingdom Hollywood's collective anal cavity so that we do not have to suffer the stench of their crap-filled sewer; the stinky- brown slime all over your face is looking ugly like a Hollywood celebrity star.
Here's the thing. I have been reading various blogs from a variety of conservatives, and I will reiterate the same thing I have been saying for years. If the majority of Americans identify themselves as conservatives ,why in God's name do they continue to make these idiots in hollywood rich by seeing their movies?
The argument, " oh I don't agree with this or that actor's view, but I really like their work' is exactly the reason why they become more and more brazen and emboldened. Stop promoting their movies! If the funding by two thirds of mainstream Americans simply dried up and was no longer the engine that keep these narcissistic, depraved and ignorant fools afloat, these idiots would disappear into the irrelevant abyss that they so rightly belong!
The sad truth is that in spite of stars like Megan Fox and others with their anti Conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-American,with their the hate filled ranting, we, the right continue to spend money on their films and thus adding to the ongoing onslaught of filth that is deemed as morals and ethics from the cesspool that is hollywood.
Take your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend out on a date instead with the money you would have spent on the movie.
Just a thought
What a load of BS. This atheist is intelligent, conservative and ashamed of neither.
Look, richb313, we're all afraid of dying. Some of us, however, are unwilling to kid ourselves about going to heaven, hell, or to Michael Jackson's house after we physically die.
This fear of death is the undergirding of religion, with all its contradictory rules for living. I don't need Christ or Allah to tell me not to molest children. Any fool knows you SIMPLY DON'T DO THAT! However, you won't learn to refrain from molesting children by reading the Holy Bible. Search it out. There are no proscriptions on sexual abuse of children in the "good book."
What would be an acceptable alternative to "normalizing" homosexuality? Perhaps we could criminalize it. Do you think gay people choose to be gay? My nephew is gay. At one time, I had more than a dozen gay friends. Nowhere in all that experience did I get the sense that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."
I agree that gay people, particularly men, have lots of sadness and other dysfunctional aspects in their lives. It's something they experience all day every day. To characterize them as abnormal is accurate, because the norm is, in fact, heterosexuality. This is no easy problem. Only the mentally lazy try to sloganize their way around it.
[...] more here: The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Right on!
Excellent point Keith! I think I'll spend my money elsewhere.
One can sympathize and see the humanity in an alchoholic without telling them that behavior is acceptable.
One can also sympathize with a pedophile who has unwanted attractions without accepting the behavior.
You have not read it then, and if you have you do not understand. Jesus said basically that anyone who would harm children would have no salvation. There have been several interpretaions of this, just as the definition of children has changed through the years.
I do not think any religion has an exclusive on the True Nature of God or the Supreme Being but to deny the very real possibility of the existence of such a Being is to not understand the paradox of causality. What was before the Big Bang? That question is actually meaningless because there was no time before the Big Bang, yet it happened anyway. God is said to have existed before the beginning and after the end. This is a concept, that until recently, confused many. Modern Physics has actually given more credence to the early biblical passages than not.
There are entire chapters devoted to it in the old testament. Most of them involve towns that engaged in all kinds of sexual immorality–towns that don't exist anymore because God hit His delete button. See anything related to Sodom and Gomorrah, Baal, Moloch…
Well, remember how it was "cute" for Drew Barrymore to dress like a street walker and snort coke at 11?
Specifically, where in the Bible does anyone say, "Don't sexually molest children."? Is that too much to ask? Why all the generalities?
On an unrelated note, where, specifically, in the Bible does anyone say, "Do not keep slaves."?
As to the question of God's existence, most atheists say there's no way, at present, to know. What I do know is, the confabulation you call the Holy Bible is a huge collection of BS, scribbled by drunken savages, many of whom seem to be clinically insane, as well.
Again, fear of dying is at the root of these incredible stories. I say incredible advisedly, meaning not credible, meaning not to be taken seriously.
All the gay men that I've known are sex addicts. It's a disease, much like alcholism, and it controls their lives. Most straight people that I know, once they get out of the frat house, are capable of holding a thought in their head that doesn't resolve around sex. My gay friends, though, constantly, throughout the day, apropos of nothing: "I want some c___." "Mmmm. Penises." "I would go down on him in a heartbeat." etc, etc. Imagine listening to this, all day, every day. In my sample set, this is the norm for that demographic.
Whether it's a choice or not, the sexual addiction is there.There is a hole in these men's souls that can't be filled with other men's genitals. Homosexuality doesn't need to be criminalized any more than alcoholism does, but they do need our help. Saying "It's perfectly ok, go and do this to your heart's content" is not the right answer, however.
Well, as a kid after learning about Jane Fonda's actions, I stoped watching her movies. As I've grown older, more actors have joined that list, such as Sean Penn. They are free to preach what they want, just as I'm free not to pay to see their works.
Could you just tell me that, for instance, I can find the Biblical injunction against sexual molestation of children by turning to 1st Confabulations; Verses 3-15? Entire chapters devoted to it? I see entire chapters devoted to insane babbling about how badly one should beat a slave, how many of the enemy should be left alive (usually none), or any number of ways to settle a sand (sorry, I meant land) dispute between drunken, ignorant savages.
Just chapter and verse, please. (Jeopard music starts)
Could you just tell me that, for instance, I can find the Biblical injunction against sexual molestation of children by turning to 1st Confabulations; Verses 3-15? Entire chapters devoted to it? I see entire chapters devoted to insane babbling about how badly one should beat a slave, how many of the enemy should be left alive (usually none), or any number of ways to settle a sand (sorry, I meant land) dispute between drunken, ignorant savages.
Just chapter and verse, please. (Jeopardy music begins…)
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
- Mathew 18:6
Years ago, I read a book about the Twilight Zone accident that killed Vic Morrow and two children and that book went through great lengths to describe how clueless Hollywood directors could be about real world concerns like safety. Let's just say that I found John Landis' name on the Polanski petition ironic, as well.
Sorry, but that's not true. Hollywood liberals are a different thing than liberals elsewhere, I think.
The Obama administration is not that bad as some people would like to portray them.
Homosexuals are not, per se, alcoholics or pedophiles. Alcoholics have already been normalized. Pedophiles will never, I fervently hope, be normalized.
Why are you speaking in parables? Are you guys actually Jesus, using two different names, just clowning around with me? If so, that's hardly a worthwhile way for a Deity to spend His time.
Again, what would be an acceptable alternative to "normalizing" homosexuality? (Jeopardy music begins…)
Homosexuals are not, per se, alcoholics or pedophiles. Alcoholics have already been normalized. Pedophiles will never, I fervently hope, be normalized.
Why are you speaking in parables? Are you guys actually Jesus, using two different names, just clowning around with me? If so, that's hardly a worthwhile way for a Deity to spend His time.
Again, what would be an acceptable alternative to "normalizing" homosexuality? (Jeopardy music begins…)
Dear Mr. Nolte:
The NEA has denied art and new media for this post as it does not meet the progressive agenda. We suggest a mentor from the Hollywood majority who hasn't spoken out against our White House conference calls for your reeducation.
Sincerely,
Valerie Jarrett, Obama's Brain
I responded with the verse a post or two above this.
Could you please direct me to the chapter on beating slaves and the other things you mentioned?
It's also a matter of being true to your own morals and having a clear conscience. I think there are so many more of us who feel that way than Hollywood thinks. If we all vote with our wallets, will they notice?
I don't think alchoholics have been normalized. It is not seen as a desirable condition to have. You do not have to criminalize a behavior to discourage it. Not giving it legal sanction in marriage would be a start. Not glamorizing it on HGTV would also be a start. Not having BigHollywood columnists equate a sexual predilection with race would also be a start. All of us are human and many have different conditions but homosexuals have turned theirs into a civil right which is not correct,
I am not a biblical scholar. I cannot quote chapter and verse and make no attempt to. I have read the bible but I do not place any signifigance on any particular verse or chapter. I tend to read and understand things as a whole. It is easy to make anything mean anything if you disect it without regard to what the whole thing means.
I am sorry that you are araid of death. I am not. It does not matter if there is an afterlife or not. If you are afraid of death then you must secretly harbor thoughts that there is an afterlife and you are possibly on the wrong side. Maybe I am wrong but why do you fear what all of us will experience one day?
I am not a biblical scholar. I cannot quote chapter and verse and make no attempt to. I have read the bible but I do not place any signifigance on any particular verse or chapter. I tend to read and understand things as a whole. It is easy to make anything mean anything if you disect it without regard to what the whole thing means.
I am sorry that you are afraid of death. I am not. It does not matter if there is an afterlife or not. If you are afraid of death then you must secretly harbor thoughts that there is an afterlife and you are possibly on the wrong side. Maybe I am wrong but why do you fear what all of us will experience one day?
Whoa, I didn't realize there's been that many pedophilic movies lately. Now I know not to watch.
It seems to me that the trend in movies today is to provoke viewers to think about issues, for example from the rapist point of view. Some people probably have a theory that this might lead them judge this kind of behavior more. I don't know whether it's working. Maybe it indeed leads people to accept this kind of behavior.
This age wants to pry out all the dark secrets and recesses of human mind and behavior. People want to see some sort of real fiction, which means that the characters must be portrayed as real, flawed people. And those common, flawed people then rise to be heroes. What happens then when the flaws of these people are utterly criminal and still they're portrayed as heroes? What does it take before the audience see the hero turn into a complete villain? Not into an anti-hero, but into a completely bad person? Does this ever happen in the movies?
LOL — Fear of death is a reasonable, very common fear. I agree, it doesn't matter whether there is an afterlife, since no system would punish those who refuse to bow down to ignorance. If there is an afterlife, it's available to all of us, atheists and believers alike. If there is an afterlife, there is no "wrong side."
I fear death because I have an ego, which will cease to exist upon my death. I also fear for my family after my death, because our government is going absolutely batsh*t crazy, which should be our #1 concern, not a book of fantasies from long ago.
You don't fear death because your fantasy protects you from that fear.
If there was a TABU list from the sixties then it will be assailed by the left: Polygamy anyone?
If there was a TABOO list from the sixties then it will be assailed by the left: Polygamy anyone?
If a topic was on a TABOO list from the sixties then it will be assailed by the left: Polygamy anyone?
You can go back to Peter Lorre's Grieg-whistling child killer Hans Beckert in Fritz Lang's M, who is exonerrated at the film's end by way of the audience being preached to that such behavior is beyond the perpetrator's control. Granted, it was a German film, but still, a precursor of the modern day Hollywood message.
Yes, thank you again for your reply.
Exodus, Chapter 21. beginning with verse 20: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
So, the Bible allows a pretty severe beating of slaves. The slaveholder is not to be punished if the slave is up and able to work within a day or two.
There are many great sites where you can read the Bible's "wisdom" on slavery and other topics. Just use a search engine and keep trying. You'll be amazed.
Yes, thank you again for your reply.
Exodus, Chapter 21. beginning with verse 20: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue in a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
So, the Bible allows a pretty severe beating of slaves. The slaveholder is not to be punished if the slave is up and able to work within a day or two.
There are many great sites where you can read the Bible's "wisdom" on slavery and other topics. Just use a search engine and keep trying. You'll be amazed.
You're not wrong. Despite their assurances, homosexual activists will open the door to legalized child rape if they can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
This is the law of unintended consequences.
I would agree, Keith, honestly. Except it's very often we have to struggle to really know what a movie is about before we walk into the theatre. Consider the recent film called "Invention of Lying". I was watching some of the trailors describing the movie and thought it looked cute and funny. I anticipated something that would describe the dangers of lies and/or uphold the value of honesty, sort of like "Liar Liar" perhaps. It wasn't until I came here and read some reviews I realized the tale was actually an attack on faith and religion. I might have actually purchased tickets to see the movie otherwise. There are a lot of movies like that, where the trailors depict amusing or otherwise engaging stories. I've learned I have to consider reviews before ever stepping foot in a theatre or buying a dvd. Doesn't mean I won't go ahead and watch the movie, just because a review is negative, mind you. But I consider carefully where it is I spend my money, too. Not everyone does that, though. I had to learn the importance of being that proactive, in fact.
Thank you for that well-reasoned response. My heart goes out to these people, especially the ones who are addicted to sex, pills, booze or any other life-destroying substance or activity.
You must admit, though, that many heterosexuals make similar comments, just substituting the objectified person for someone of the opposite sex.
The verse actually refers to leading a child astray. Which, indeed, could be any number of things. If you don't think molesting a child is leading them astray and harmful to them, well thats another story.
However, atempting to discredit the verse by pointing out that it could mean any number of things, when infact the point is to mean any number of things. Jesus is very specific when he wants to be. He didnt really need to be that specific here because it basically says don't harm a child. Though, if you were able to interpret the verse into meaning that the fault lay on the child… I would assume I'm throwing pearls before swine. – Matthew 7:6
On another note. If you are under the impression that the point of following Jesus is to get into Heaven, as opposed to Hell. Or to avoid death, however you put it earlier. Then you lack even the slightest understanding of Jesus and/or the Bible, which I assume would make understanding it difficult.
This is a vast over simplifaction, but in a nutshell: I follow Jesus because I love Him. Because He first loved me.
Being an atheist I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but, Jesus loves you too.
This is a great comment and dead on the money accurate. Thanks!!
I feel the need to clarify the pearls before swine verse. I was not insulting or calling you a swine. its an analogy to the swine not understanding the value of pearls. All i meant was you didn't understand the verse from reading your response.
What film? Unless you mean Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver…
I just posted this, so it will most likely end up in a double post, but for some reason mods have to look at the comment first and I presume you will have read my response before they do.
I was not being insulting or calling you a swine with the perals before swine verse. It is an A – N – A – L – O – G – Y in that the swine don't understand the value of pearls, and from reading your response you did not understand the verse.
Note: I spaced a – n – a – l – o – g – y out like this because I think thats what hit the filter.
No film, real life.
[...] outcry on Roman Polanski’s arrest and other celebrity garbage: John Nolte, Big Hollywood: The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children and Polanski Vs. Kazan: A Tale of Two Oscars Sister Toldjah: Hollyweird elites launch effort to [...]
Well, HumanPersonJr, I'm a gay man and a Conservative (note the capital 'C') and I'm neither dysfunctional nor sad all day. In fact, I awake each morning and thank my Heavenly Father for the new and glorious day he has given me.
[...] Me (UPDATED With More Evidence) (UPDATED With Admission and Apology) John Nolte, Big Hollywood: The Polanski Culture: Hollywood’s Push to Normalize Sex With Children and Polanski Vs. Kazan: A Tale of Two Oscars Michelle Malkin: “Judges want to f— young girls. [...]
Sadly, Fanning did try to defend the rape of her character on camera:
http://www.popcrunch.com/dakota-fanning-defends-h...
The fact the director wants to show the scene makes me question his view of little girls.
Fortunately, the outcry against the normalizing of child rape led to Hound Dog tanking at the box office:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id...
But this film is yet another example of Hollywood trying to portray child rape as A-OK instead of the sick depravity it is.
Bravo. A wonderful chronology of Hollywood's descent into the abyss.
or is it 'intended consequences'? We are starting to think that this is being engineered so the so-called 'elite' can have their pool of nubile sex toys to do with as THEY SEE FIT. This is too widespread to be an accident. It isn't a gay or straight issue, either- it's an abuse of power story…
The Hollywood perversion goes even further, I'm afraid. These young stars that are chosen to act in these roles end up leading lives filled with the classic symptoms of abuse. I hear all the time about how actors "really get into the role" and they "try to connect with their character to better portray them on screen, make them more believable". That's a little frightening to me.
Nowadays, there are more websites that really delve into whether a movie is pushing a moral or immoral worldview. Here are two popular ones that reviewed Invention of Lying:
*Plugged In:
http://www.pluggedin.com/en/movies/InTheaters/Inv...
*Movieguide:
http://www.movieguide.org/box-office/7/10004/the-...
We conservatives are blessed with the resources in order to support the gold and skip the dross.
So, Keith is correct that we have NO more excuses for supporting films that mock or demean our values.
Who is the Prince of This World?
Thank you, Michael, for replying.
I should've mentioned this in my comment, above: Many of the gay men I've known who are sad and dysfunctional are that way due to external factors. I knew a wonderful young man, gay, whose father was terminally ill. When my friend walked into his dad's hospital room, dear ol' dad would say, "Well, there's the f*g*ot again," and turn to face the wall. How do you live with that and not be scarred?
I'm glad for your testimony, although you might want to re-think the Christian part (LOL, kidding). We Conservatives (I remembered the capital "C") are life-oriented, and I salute you for living a good life.
I'm also glad to know gay Conservatives. Political conservatism, practiced in government, is a benefit to everyone, not just straight, white males.
And this whole Jennings (Safe Schools for paedophiles) and his adoration of a NAMBLA member is just happenstance???
Also, I've known many gay men who were not (as far as I could tell) sex addicts. I salute any gay person, man or woman, who can life a good life and enjoy it, without succumbing to disastrous thoughts and activities.
Oh, so you're surprised the contemporary socialists take their lead from European Nazi SOCIALISTS?
This is sarcasm.
I do not think it is a matter of Hollywood playing politics so much as it is the industry reflecting general public sentiment. That especially holds true when it comes to the portrayal of male victims and female predators. The other reason for the films is because many in that industry like to be "provocative" and nothing is more provocative than the sexual abuse (or what they would likely frame as the sexuality) of children. What is more interesting is the juxtaposition between Hollywood's sensitive portrayal of sexual abuse and the same people's reaction to sexual violence when it occurs in the political spear. The same people who produced and supported the above films were the same people rallying for the 14-year-old girl who was raped in Iraq. These people supported the film Redacted that was about that experience primarily because the film annoyed conservatives and Republicans. It demonstrates the hypocrisy at play.
I am surprised that "Hound dog" did not make the list. It debuted along with a bestiality story at Sundance a few years back. That was the point where I swore that Hollywood would never get another minute of my time nor a dime of my money.
Many heterosexuals do, but there's a difference of degree. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, some heterosexual men are leches, but ALL homosexual men are.
The rates of sexually transmitted diseases ( HIV, syphillis, hepatitis, herpes, gonorreah, scabies) with homosexual men are extremely high. Pretending they are not is not helping them. I'm not saying this to be cruel it is just the truth.
You are painfully naive or uninformed.
I don't consider homophobia the "normalizing" of behavior… I get your point but to me Hollywood has done good and important work in the arena of allowing people to see the humanity in gays and lesbians — whereas before they were seen almost exclusive as punchlines, stereotypes and worse…
As far as normalizing any behavior — gay or striaght — involving loveless sex … I am with you 100%.
I don't consider homophobia the "normalizing" of behavior… I get your point but to me Hollywood has done good and important work in the arena of allowing people to see the humanity in gays and lesbians — whereas before they were seen almost exclusivy as punchlines, stereotypes and worse…
As far as normalizing any behavior — gay or striaght — involving loveless sex … I am with you 100%.
That's interesting to hear, though not surprising… Unfortunately.
I'm a big fan of both "Lolita" films and if you hit me on the right day, I'll tell you Lynne's is superior to Kubrick's.
Both do a very good job of portraying the molester as a dimensional human being without excusing his monstrous behavior. Lolita's ultimate fate also suggests the psychological effect on her was lasting. A promising, smart, virbant girl had her soul ripped from her.
Check out the 70's film "Cabaret". Tho'' restricted somewhat by the mores of the times, Fosse clearly depicts the decadance of Berlin in the thirties, the transvestites in the "Kit Kat Klub", Sally Bowles's promiscuity (in the days before the pill), the menage a troi between two men and both men with Sally, the ominous future that looms before them which they characters generally ignore. One particular horrifying scene is of the two young men in brownshirts singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" in the biergarten, the rich German who seduces both Sally and Brian arrogantly pointing out "we can handle them", the body of Marisa Berenson's little dog laid a ther door….
We have come full circle now with a victim of Nazi horror (Polanski) raping a child while Hollywood makes films about victimizing young boys and girls and signing petititons the protect Polanski.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. But you kind of just 'normalized' it again by equating gay and straight. My larger point is that Hollywood has done the same thing with homosexuality that they are now doing with pedophilia. I do not think homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia but it is a condition -chosen or not- that is unhealthy. The amount of "loveless" sex among gay men is way above what your average heterosexual engages in. I'm not talking about individual homosexuals and how nice they are or are not. But when you look at it as a whole it is very troubling. It sanitizes the level of promiscuity in that community to simply call it "loveless". That is a little quaint for what is going on.
Another movie along these lines that really bugged me was the horrid and appalling "Babel" (directed by, looky here, another guy who signed that Polanski petition). It had that faux message of "we have to save the children" while disgustingly exploiting them in the film itself. The Japanese actress was in her 20s, but played a teenager whose pubic hair played an important starring role and then appears completely naked in the last several minutes of the film. Then I was absolutely appalled with the scene of a boy, who didn't look older than 10-13 years of age, masturbating because he had the hots for his sister. Really, I should have just left the room.
Back when Polanski raped that girl, Hollywood was in another pedophilia phase. This was the same era where 13-year-old Jodie Foster played a prostitute, teenage Linda Blair got raped with a broom handle on t.v., and Brooke Shields became a "star" because her mom had nude pics taken of her when she was 10 years old. The pedophilia chic of the 1970s died during the child sex abuse scandals of the 1980s. Now pedophilia is back in style among the elites, back out of the closet. I've always believed that child pornography and child sex trafficking could be shut down tomorrow if not for very powerful people in the background keeping them alive.
Not sure about the premise. I don't think screenwriters, directors and actors are a bunch of pervs who want to turn the rest of us into a bunch of pervs. (Some of them ARE pervs and some of us will become pervs without their help.) I think it's all about their "art." These people make their living creating characters and dramatic interactions between characters. The purpose is to "explore" characters and situations – to see what makes people tick. They can do anything they want with their characters because…after all…it's only a movie. I think that to them, the statement made or insights gleaned from characters in a situation are more important – or at least more interesting – than the situation itself. So they basically do experiments on their characters. What's the worst/best/strangest/most socially disapproved-of situation we can put some people in? How will those people react and be changed by that situation? Pedophilia? Incest? Sure! The more stress the better. Anything for the sake of "drama."
Nice try, John. Would you care to inform your readers that "Towelhead" (a thoroughly despicable film no matter how you slice it) grossed a whopping $372, 124 at the box office? Or that Cate Blanchett's character in "Notes on A Scandal" suffers the consequences of her actions: her life is completely ruined, her family torn apart; I think she even does some prison time? Or that Jackie Earle Haley's character in "Little Children" winds up castrated, by his own hand? Or that there's a very good chance, in "Doubt," that Phillip Seymour Hoffman's priect character din't actually DO anything? Whoa, yeah, there's some real glamorization/normalization of the idea of sex with children for you.
I don't suppose I'll persuade you, or anybody else, that what goes on in "Birth" is what you'd call a metaphor, as such things don't cut much ice with the terminally-literal minded; just let me assure you that nobody who saw that movie considered it a prescription for getting down with ten-year-old boys.
And the purpose is not to "judge" these characters. It's to "explore" them. That's why, in "arty" films, pedophiles and rapists often get a past. As intellectually-advanced film-goers, we're supposed to be interested in them as characters, not as if they were real, live pedophiles and rapists – whom, presumably, we're still expected to abhor.
That's my phony-baloney theory, anyway…
Arguing that is perfectly reasonable. The one question I've asked gay marriage supporters which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on is this: The whole argument is that homosexual partners are consenting adults who "love" each other, just as heterosexuals do, and therefore ought to be allowed the same rights and privileges, including marriage, that heterosexuals have, right? Well, according to that principle, it makes total sense to allow polygamy, group marriage (multiple partners of both sexes), and even some forms of incest (as long as the participants are both consenting adults). I don't see this as a "slippery slope" argument, because this definition would still rule certain things out, such as bestiality and (I still think) pedophilia, unless they do manage to change the age of consent laws. The people I've mentioned this to tell me I'm wrong, but they've never given me a clear answer why. What's the difference?
Sorry – that should say "…often get a pass." Though they do sometimes get a past as well.
However, as I tried to say in a previous Polanski article, I think it's possible that this way of thinking about characters might actually affect the way *some* H-wood creative types think about themselves and other people. If you're used to thinking of fictional situations involving rape and pedophelia as "interesting" and "compelling" and "dramatic" – just raw material for storytelling – maybe you develop a certain workmanlike objectivity about similar situations in real life. But I think you'd have to start out somewhat screwed up for that to happen. Which brings up the question: Does Hollywood create moral cripples or merely attract them?
I don't condemn people for feeling homosexual inclinations. Although the whole idea of a "gay gene" is moronic (if there's any truth to evolution, why would nature develop a gene that discourages us from reproducing?), I do believe there are genetic factors and internal chemical imbalances that influence a person's sexual preference that way. That, however, is a long way from saying being gay is as immutable a part of your being as is being black or female or whatever.
A sensitive temperment, a weak relationship with the father, and an overprotective mother and you are well on your way. It doesn't help to have it glamorized on television and at Abercrombie and Fitch as well.
"Any fool knows you SIMPLY DON'T DO THAT!"
And yet, this very story proves this statement wrong. where did you get your ideas that something is wrong if there is no "rulebook" to state there is a wrong to be found?
"I reject the concept of sin."
And that is why religious people don't trust atheists of any kind – conservative or liberal. Sin is more than just "wrong choices," as they are guiding moral rules and laws.
In Little Children the character is not a pedophile or a molester. He was charged with indecent exposure. He had a problem with masturbating in public, ie the scene where is on the date and he is in the car. At the end of the movie his mom dies and tells him to be a good boy, therefore he castrates himself. It was not pro pedaphille.
Have to split this comment into multiples.
It's remarkable someone could get every single point wrong, Glenn. You deserve an award – the fact that Towelhead made no money is no reflection on the fact that it was made/accepted/financed by Hollywood starring A-list actors/with an A list director/producers – ergo the title of this article "Hollywood's PUSH to normalize" not "America has bought into Hollywood's normalization". Cate Blanchett's character's life is only ruined because she has a psycho friend in the form of Judi Dench who exposes the whole thing – not shown is how the boy is able/unable to have successful adult relationships or how a teacher/student affair affected him. If I remember correctly, the boy suffers no consequences (maybe an upset parent), and neither would Cate had it not been for the weirdly obsessive Judi – the 'wrongness' of the act wasn't addressed, it was only a device by which Judi could manipulate Cate.
Jackie Earle castrating himself was only to show how bad the 'suburbans' were – just leave this poor simpleton child molester alone who just cares for his mother and wants to live a normal life – SEE what those judgmental meanies drove him to do. And who was the bad guy in Doubt, oh yeah, the woman who sought to protect the children from a feared molester. The message of Hoffman NOT doing anything – see what havoc the tyranical Christian b!$@# wrought by her suspecting ways. So, re: Birth, so long as it is a "metaphor", there's no problem with pederasty? Fact is, metaphor or not, the CHARACTER of Nicole Kidman believed the boy character was her husband (as did the boy character) and acted as if it was so – because it's a metaphor, Glenn is ok with this.
Please correct me if I've gotten any of these wrong. If not, I can recommend a good shrink, Glenn.
This world isn't, to my knowledge, a monarchy. Hence, there is no Prince of This World.
There is, however, the artist formerly known as Prince.
There is something of a double standard at work. Hollywood feeds us endless depictions of rape, murder and other crimes – has been doing so for years. Yet nobody accuses Hollywood of "pushing to normalize" rape, murder and crime. Even people who abhor sex and violence in the media seldom accuse the industry of conniving to make our society more sexualized and violent. We usually note that the industry is just conniving to sell movie tickets, video games and advertising air time.
Some people buy the premise that the mere depiction of something in a work of fiction somehow implies acceptance of it by the culture – or in this case, the Hollywood sub-culture. That is, if we keep depicting pedophilia, for example, then people will eventually become morally desensitized to pedophilia – especially if the depiction itself seems to be morally ambivalent. I don't know if that's true or not.
Perhaps, I am. And perhaps I'm trying to be more constructive than you.
One more thought on Hollywood doing good work combating homophobia. Using stereotypes and punchlines may be cruel and painful to others as well – but it is societies way of collectively saying that we are not kosher with that behavior. Sort of a bop on the nose to let everyone know what is considered normal. SNL does it all the time with people and things they disfavor. I think in the end it was less cruel because it encouraged people away from that life. Which is a good thing because pretending it is normal leads many more people to self-destructive lives.
I do not fear what I cannot prevent. Fear is only usefull when it causes us to act in such a way to prevent harm to ourselves or others. Fear is usefull in combat for that very reason. To fear death is to fear life. If you have fear of death then it is probabl that you also fear life and all the unexpected things that life brings. I do not know if there is an after life in any sense that we understand. There might be a continuation of existence but will we be aware of the pervious existence? I simply do not know and while it may cause me to wonder wht the final outcome will be there is no need for fear.
I do not fear what I cannot prevent. Fear is only usefull when it causes us to act in such a way to prevent harm to ourselves or others. Fear is usefull in combat for that very reason. To fear death is to fear life. If you have fear of death then it is possible that you also fear life and all the unexpected things that life brings. I do not know if there is an after life in any sense that we understand. There might be a continuation of existence but will we be aware of the pervious existence? I simply do not know and while it may cause me to wonder what the final outcome will be there is no need for fear.
Wow, just reading your article makes me want to go though a decontamination chamber. Sick, Sick films. One thing left out in the article, what about the child actors who are in these films. Isn't this a form of child abuse? The directors, actors and especially the parents should be prosecuted. Hollywood is an absolute pit of depravity. One final note, I will never watch another film with Nicole Kidman or any of the other actors who appear in films of this ilk.
Willfully ignoring evil isn't being constructive- it's being complicit. Read up on Kevin Jennings, his book, then tell me why he should be placed anywhere near our children. Jennings can be as perverted as he wants to be as long as he doesn't hurt anyone and isn't given authority over our children- which is what Obama has done.
You say you used to be a conservative Christian. What changed and what do you consider yourself to be now?
As I have said for two decades now, you first make gays sound normal, then the next step is to make adult sex with kids sound normal. Leftists at the start claimed that I was just being paranoid and that would never happen. But then, looking at the fight that leftists everywhere are putting up to protect Kevin Jennings and Roman Polanski, my predictions were right on the mark.
There is already a push to normalize pedophilia by those who claim a distinction must be made between consensual sex and non consensual sex between adults and children. The argument is along the same lines as presented by the mother in "Doubt."
Though honestly it would be better not to describe this as pedophilia as I don't believe the argument is used in favor of sex with prepubescent children but with adolescents.
I do think that within 5 years you will have the APA removing pedophilia from DSM IV after receiving pressure and proofs from experts that it is just another legitimate expression of sexuality. From there we will be told over and over again that we must not judge those who desire children. This will eventually lead to laws criminalizing discrimination against pedophiles. Mind you at that point the word pedophile will be considered proof of bigotry and the term "child lover" favored to show the good intent of the "We're All NAMBLA Now" activists.
And if you want to now when the push to normalize pedophilia in this culture started. Do a google search on Kinsey and Pedophilia
You must be logged in to post a comment.