Pedophilia out of control in Liberal Hollywood

[denner]

Quote from Maverick74:

And let's not forget the very controversial film "Kids". This film is very graphic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/

Gus Van Sant. He also did "My Own Private Idaho", probably about 2 years before River Phoenix od'd. Van Sant has always been controversial, even by Hollywood's perverse standards.

btw, reading between the lines of the Corey Feldman interview, I got the feeling that he mentioned age 14 to pinpoint the film he was on at that time and to identify "the mogul" without naming names. I'm going with Stand By Me...hint: "Meathead" was the director.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from denner:

Add Pretty Baby (1978) and The Blue Lagoon (1980). Pretty Baby was the posterchild of pedophilia at the time. Heck even in the "swingin seventies" people were aghast at having Brooke Shields appear nude as a 10 year old.

It really is tedious arguing with these idiots who continue to defend the indefensible.

You are the idiot here. Brooks Shields was 12 years old when she made Pretty Baby. Although PB didn't actually show any underage sex, it does qualify as child porn for the outrageous nude scenes of Brooke. Everybody associated with the movie, including Brooke's mother, should have been prosecuted. So that's one for promoting pedophilia.

The Blue Lagoon on the other hand had no such nude scenes of Brooke (age 14). They used an adult body double in the nude scenes. And the sex was between teenagers, so that hardly qualifies as pedophilia.

Movies like Pretty Baby haven't been allowed for decades now. Get over it.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Maverick74:

You are missing the mother of them all...Lolita!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119558/

And to top it off, the actress in the movie is only 15 years old and Jeremy Irons is 50 plus.

Was that a promotion of pedophilia? Was the old lech portrayed sympathically? I only read the summary of the plot but the old guy doesn't come off like a hero to me. And again they used a body double for the underage actress.

From wikipedia:

Lolita is a novel by Vladimir Nabokov, first written in English and published in 1955 in Paris and 1958 in New York, and later translated by the author into Russian. The novel is notable for its controversial subject: the protagonist and unreliable narrator, middle-aged literature professor Humbert Humbert, is obsessed with the 12-year-old Dolores Haze, with whom he becomes sexually involved after she becomes his stepdaughter. His private nickname for Dolores is Lolita.

The book is also notable for its writing style. The narrative is highly subjective as Humbert draws on his fragmented memories, employing a sophisticated prose style, while attempting to gain the reader's sympathy through his sincerity and melancholy, although near the end of the story Humbert refers to himself as a "maniac" who "deprived" Dolores "of her childhood", and he shortly thereafter states "the most miserable of family lives was better than the parody of incest" in which they were involved.

After its publication, Lolita attained a classic status, becoming one of the best-known and most controversial examples of 20th century literature. The name "Lolita" has entered pop culture to describe a sexually precocious girl. The novel was adapted to film by Stanley Kubrick in 1962, and again in 1997 by Adrian Lyne. It has also been adapted several times for stage and has been the subject of two operas, two ballets, and an acclaimed but failed Broadway musical.

Lolita is included on Time's list of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005. It is fourth on the Modern Library's 1998 list of the 100 Best Novels of the 20th century. It also made the World Library's list of one of The 100 Best Books of All Time.

Looks like the promotion of Lolita is more an American problem than a Hollywood problem. :eek:

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from 377OHMS:

To me promotion means a persistent and organized effort to reduce our cultural inhibitions towards both topics by omitting any negativity that are associated with those behaviors in real-life.

Murder is actually a pretty good example. If murders are depicted as casual acts with no consequences and no recognition of destructive secondary effects (devasted family, orphaned children etc) eventually the cultural barriers that inhibit the occurrence of murder are lowered. That is exactly what experts are saying has happened. Now video games are contributing. They say that kids are far less inhibited from committing murder now than 50 years ago. I think post-war Hollywood did that gradually and deliberately. It was promotion. The only difference from homosexuality and pedophilia is that with murder they wanted to sell more tickets and with homosexuality they want to actually increase acceptance of the lifestyle.

Sounds like you want nothing but G-rated movies with all females wearing burkas.

Good luck with that.

 

[denner]

Quote from kut2k2:

You are the idiot here. Brooks Shields was 12 years old when she made Pretty Baby. Although PB didn't actually show any underage sex, it does qualify as child porn for the outrageous nude scenes of Brooke. Everybody associated with the movie, including Brooke's mother, should have been prosecuted. So that's one for promoting pedophilia.

The Blue Lagoon on the other hand had no such nude scenes of Brooke (age 14). They used an adult body double in the nude scenes. And the sex was between teenagers, so that hardly qualifies as pedophilia.

Movies like Pretty Baby haven't been allowed for decades now. Get over it.

So you start with "you are the idiot here" and then essentially agree that it was a bonafide example of pedophilia. Really, you've outdone yourself.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from denner:

So you start with "you are the idiot here" and then essentially agree that it was a bonafide example of pedophilia. Really, you've outdone yourself.

You got her age wrong and there is no favorable depiction of pedophilia. The question was whether pedophilia is being PROMOTED, not merely portrayed. There are a lot of films portraying pedophilia which only a psycho could consider as promoting it. A prime example would be Taxi Driver. Pretty Baby screwed up by having actual underage nudity, which today qualifies as child porn.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from kut2k2:

You got her age wrong and there is no favorable depiction of pedophilia. The question was whether pedophilia is being PROMOTED, not merely portrayed. There are a lot of films portraying pedophilia which only a psycho could consider as promoting it. A prime example would be Taxi Driver. Pretty Baby screwed up by having actual underage nudity, which today qualifies as child porn.

The bottom line is that Hollywood promotes homosexuality and pedophilia and has for years. I'm glad that is settled.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from 377OHMS:

The bottom line is that Hollywood promotes homosexuality and pedophilia and has for years. I'm glad that is settled.

I thought it was settled several pages back.

 

[iceman1]

Quote from 377OHMS:

No, I'm not going to produce a research paper for you or otherwise be bothered with your yammering. I will cite a couple of obvious examples from among the central products of Hollywood, movies:

The Day of the Jackal (1973)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Paper Moon (1973)
Taxi Driver (1976)
The Professional (1994)

Take them as you like because I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince you of anything. I thought of those in about 90 seconds. Those are the oldest examples I could think of in that time span.

To be honest I have not seen Brokeback Mountain but saw a review or something that discussed its content. The rest I've seen.

Hollywood has promoted homosexuality and pedophilia for decades and is actively promoting them today.

The bottom line is that Hollywood promotes homosexuality and pedophilia and has for years. I'm glad that is settled.

(can't resist)


bro, i mean this with all due respect and 100% sincerity. You sound like a raving irrational lunatic. Seriously. That is how you appear.
This not a liberal or conservative statement.

Whether far left or far right, all maniacs are disturbed. I used to be a prosecutor, and would gladly stipulate with any defense counsel that you are indeed insane and that we need not go to the Jury, for decision; just throw your behind into some mental institution and see if they can medicate your ignorant mind into a world of enlightenment from a current state of delusion and apparent hallucination(s).

Like I said... I really feel you have a problem understanding the difference between your opinion, and fact. In other words, you don't really care much about the "truth!" I am not in anyway attempting to be rude or critical. It's just my 'opinion' of your current state of sanity or perception of reality after reading your gibberish over many pages.

Kut2 is wasting his time debating with you. He sounds brilliant in his debate skills; you sound incapable of any meaningful debate. For sure, you (and your cohorts) have no idea what a fact is or what evidence means. The reason for the concept of "evidence" being "admissible" to a decision-maker is because it has been determined to be reliable! The reason hearsay is not admissible, with certain exceptions, is because it keeps raving madmen (like you) from lynching innocent people based upon ideology, innuendo, speculation, what your manicurist or neighbor told you last week and/or what you read in People or Natl. Enquirer.

I will go further and say that guys like you, on any end of the political spectrum, are R e a l l y S c a r y to the USA!

When I read messages from your ilk and/or hear your kind spewing unsupported hyperbole, generalization and innuendo elsewhere, I think of: Joe McCarthy

Can you not see and understand any other side of an issue? You did not agree with ONE single thing Kut2 said, yet he made very rational and sound counter-points. He asked for you to reply with credible, truthful support of your broad-brushed viewpoints. Generalizations are what people use when their facts are missing. It's like Mark Twain said: "get your facts straight first, then you can distort them." He further said "all generalizations are FALSE including this one."

All Hollywood is liberal, ergo all liberals are either pedophiles and/or are instrumental in advocating or subliminally causing, pedophilia! Is that your distorted point of view? Did I state it fairly correctly?

And, your "proof" of same is some movies that you personally do not approve of? Is that true?

But I don't hear you strenuously objecting to movies depicting violence that might have been produced, directed or acted by those that are "non-liberal!" Typical

What I read on many ET political threads, from guys like you, seems to be not far from mien kampf. LOL

best of luck in the New Year.

p.s. I consider Day of the Jackal an entertaining movie; what the hell do you object to?

 

[iceman1]

Quote from kut2k2:

Sounds like you want nothing but G-rated movies with all females wearing burkas.

Good luck with that.

men who subscribe to very conservative political and religious viewpoints do not have nor like sex; they are celibate and frigid, just like the celibate priests who need to do an altar boy every now and then to assuage their human needs.


(is that a generalization... or a fact?!) LOL