Walkouts at screening of new movie featuring 10-year-old girl playing sex robot

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjm076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think we should overlook the incest aspect of this movie, either.
As if the child porn / child abuse weren’t “unsavory” enough.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Student films, arthouse films, they are aimed at a very niche market.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Exactly. Student films, arthouse films, they are aimed at a very niche market.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay then.
The content doesn’t matter, then, if it’s aimed at a niche market. Child porn, incest, it’s a shame they didn’t manage to throw some more “unsavory” topics in there!
 
vz71 said:
40.png
Zaccheus:
You did not. My comment wasn’t meant as a retort to yours.
Click to expand...
Given that both acts are disgusting, I do not see how this could be an effective retort.
Click to expand...
As I said, it was not meant as a retort.
 
As stated above in the Variety review, this film does not show the things that LSN suggests.

I’d venture to say that 90% of dramatic plays, movies, books, novellas, short stories, poems, contain sinful content. We can choose to never read/watch any of it.

The Bible itself has incest, rape, murder, racism, adultery, that does not mean the Bible condones any of those things.
 
mjm076 said:
There needs to be mass protests against this disgusting filth!
Click to expand...
That it is disgusting filth is beyond dispute, but mass protests would more likely serve to draw attention to it that would otherwise not happen, and increase its impact. Given the nature of the film and its target audience, absent undue publicity it will likely have a short run and make essentially no impact on the wider society.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Exactly. Student films, arthouse films, they are aimed at a very niche market.
Click to expand...
There seems to be this puerile tendency for shocking their elders among young artists.

Pedophilia is one of the last forbidden tendencies now that being gay is more acceptable.

This movie is purely for shock value and if it manages to shock the elders that’s considered a win.

No, it’s not a concerted effort by the LGBTQ movement to normalize pedophilia.
 
Last edited:
Reading about the film from sources other than LSN, this film is done to make the viewer think about how our current trend toward not only complete automation but to synthetic AI beings could open a Pandora’s box of moral, ethical, and legal things we have never even considered.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Reading about the film from sources other than LSN, this film is done to make the viewer think about how our current trend toward not only complete automation but to synthetic AI beings could open a Pandora’s box of moral, ethical, and legal things we have never even considered.
Click to expand...
That’s always the best way to make people think: show simulations of explicit scenes with an actual 10-year-old child acting the part of a sex robot.
It’s very intellectual really.
 
From every review I’ve read, there are no explicit scenes with a 10 year old child, or any child. This is from those who have already screened the film. I tend to think that the professional critics are not lying to people.
 
I assume the Department of Justice is possibly constrained by the language used in legislation. I know that “child abuse images”, “images of child abuse”, etc. are the terms now preferred. “Child pornography” carries the implication that it is just pornography involving children. It opens up the interpretation that it could be a valid form of erotica.
 
The legal term used in the federal statutes, Title 18 USC is “child pornography”. It does not open up any “interpretation” of any kind because the term is legally defined in the statute. A legally defined term means what the definition says, no more and no less.

Furthermore, every federal court dealing with this issue has used and will use the same term because it is a legal term of art. Whatever “interpretations” some person who’s not involved in law enforcement might make of the term are totally irrelevant. We have an entire body of law using the term in the legally defined sense at this point.

Bottom line is that every federal lawyer, judge, law enforcement officer etc uses the term, and it is likely to continue to be used as a legal term of art for the foreseeable future, at least at the federal level (if some state wants to rename and redefine the term in their state law, that’s a state law issue). So your suggestion that nobody uses that term any more is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct in that the term codified into the law and will continue to be used.

@do_justly_love_mercy is also correct in that there is a push within the law enforcement communities who work these cases (including forensic interviewers, social workers, NCMEC employees, etc.) to use phrases like “child abuse images” because “child pornography” can be interpreted to insinuate that the child gave consent to being victimized. This is of course, impossible for someone under the age of 18 to do.

When I first started working these cases more than a decade ago, it wasn’t uncommon to hear the term “kiddie porn” being used by law enforcement officers who never worked these types of cases. Thankfully, that phrase is now considered highly offensive and not used anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top