August 2017
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31


on child-rape in so-called 'art'


apologies for the comment-disabling; I hate to do it but it's necessary this time. This is an extremely sensitive topic for me and last time I posted about it the disagreements put me in a serious depression and I'm fairly depressed right now anyway, so I just can't handle it. If you agree and want to talk more about it, feel free to email me. If you disagree, please keep it to yourself. If you think you can't keep your opposing viewpoint to yourself, do not click the cut.

I understand that rape happens and it is therefore a part of human experience and it would be unrealistic to have no films involving it. I think it is important to show the effects of it. However, it is NOT necessary to show the rape itself. Angelina has been in several films where rape was implied, but not shown, and two of those were so triggering I haven't been able to re-watch them yet, several years and much healing later. Original Sin is a movie that I think is extremely true and powerful, showing how sexual abuse changes you, breaks you into two (or more) people, makes it nearly impossible to have a healthy relationship, and how you can have love for the abuser, because they can be kind to you when they are not ripping your soul to bits. And there was NO rape shown (it was implied), NO child sexual abuse shown (again, implied), and it could not have been any clearer that that is what happened.

I find it utterly horrifying that there are films made with minors in rape scenes. I find all rape scenes in films to be unnecessary and anti-human, but to add the fact that a CHILD is acting out a rape is despicable. There are three of these films that I know of, two involving pre-pubescent children of 12 years old (dunno how old the other one was, don't want to look it up). I think the parents should absolutely be jailed and have their children given to people who will better care for them. It would be child abuse if they were filming it at home, but filming it in a studio justifies it? Call it 'art' and it's okay? If a child is too young to consent to sex, they are too young to be involved in the imitation of a rape scene! It makes me furious that this even exists.

concerning censorship: I think that nudity is a pure and beautiful thing at any age. However, if I were to take nude photos of children, I would not share them online at all. Why? because of the risk of those children's images being used by pedophiles. I do not censor myself for any reason except for the protection of children. Children are far more important than making a point. For that reason alone, there should be no child rape scenes in film.

concerning it being 'fake': The concept that it's 'just acting' and is 'not real' -- bullshit. They are real people, and that makes it real. I think it is horrifying that adults would stand around and film as a child is 'fake' raped/abused. ALSO. Watching it happen in on the screen while you sit and do nothing is, in my very strong belief, the reason why people stand around and WATCH when real rapes happen instead of calling the police or getting involved. You've been trained to believe that it's not 'real' and there is nothing you can do, so how can you face the fact that it is real, and there IS something you can do?

concerning the child's claim of being okay: Many victims would insist that they were unaffected -- does that make it true? Many pre-teen children would say they are ready for adult situations -- does that make it true? Like I said, if a child is too young to consent to sex, they are too young to be involved in the imitation of a rape scene!

and on that horrible horrible piece of filth called 'Lolita': it's easy to see the impact that nasty pile of lies has had upon our society. What is a 'lolita'? is it, perhaps, a descriptor for a child who has been abused and is now so shattered and hurt that it will take many years for them to get to a point of having a decently happy life, if they don't suicide first? or is it, according to that evil book and the dictionary, a female child who seduces an older man or a 'sexually precocious' child? THERE IS NO SUCH THING. The false concept that a child could or would seduce an adult is widespread in our culture thanks to the evil man who wrote that book. If I had a choice between killing a rapist and killing that man before he wrote the book, I would kill him. And I wouldn't even be sorry. I really, honestly don't think I'd have a crisis of conscience over it. And to clarify: I don't have a problem with it because it is about abuse. I have a problem with it because it blatantly glamorizes abuse.

Consider: If a person were to create a 'pretty' painting of a man molesting a child, would you comment on the lighting, the choice of colors, the intricacy of brushstrokes? Would you hang that painting in your house, encourage people to look at it? Would the 'artyness' of it make the subject okay?

This has been constantly bothering me lately. How can I live in a world where this horrible evil is considered okay even by kind, intelligent people?


back to top

on communication, social justice, intimacy, consent, friendship & other relationships, spirituality, gender, queerness, & dreams. Expect to find curse words, nudity, (occasionally explicit) talk of sex, and angry ranting, but NEVER slurs or sexually violent language. I use TW when I am aware of the need and on request.
Expect to find curse words, nudity, (occasionally explicit) talk of sex, and angry ranting, but NEVER slurs or sexually violent language. I use TW when I am aware of the need and on request.