Go ahead. Take your top off

[Skwim]

Does anyone remember Franco Zefferrelli's version of "Romeo and Juliet"? The main actress was very briefly topless when getting out of bed, and she was only 15 at the time if my memory is correct. If I was her father, I would not have had a problem with her doing that scene.

Looking it up on the internet you appear to be correct. She was 15, and the movie was made in the U.K. and Italy. And if I was her father I wouldn't have had a problem with her doing the scene either.



.

 

[Valjean]

I'm discussing "tasteful" within the context of a movie scene that has a sexual undertone. In this type of situation, I would find a request for a minor to bare her breasts to be distasteful. I don't believe that minors should be exploited sexually for the sake of art.

How is briefly standing toplessin a window sexual exploitation? How is it sexual at all?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is briefly standing toplessin a window sexual exploitation? How is it sexual at all?

Not to mention how she is a girl with very low self esteem who meets a guy who is pretty weird, and the scene in questions shows she has developed at least enough confidence to not shamefully hide herself in the background as she usually does. It's not called exploitation, it's called character development within a relationship of two "lost souls" who are filled with hurt and pain.
I'm really going to have to watch this movie again, because it's been awhile and I can't recall everything like I should be able to be add to the discussion.

 

[Valjean]

In the 1930s a preteen Shirley Temple was made to act in a number of films. Was she being exploited?

When she was six she was made to tap dance on a staircase while holding hands with a black man. This was so shocking the scene was cut in southern states.

"so ruthless in its exploitation of Miss Temple's great talent for infant charm that it seldom succeeds in being properly lively and gay".

Review. New York Times. Mar 22, 1935

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wow. People who are worried about gay parents screwing their kids up should see this movie to see how heterosexual parents can really screw their kids up.

 

[Skwim]

Not to mention how she is a girl with very low self esteem who meets a guy who is pretty weird, and the scene in questions shows she has developed at least enough confidence to not shamefully hide herself in the background as she usually does. It's not called exploitation, it's called character development within a relationship of two "lost souls" who are filled with hurt and pain.
I'm really going to have to watch this movie again, because it's been awhile and I can't recall everything like I should be able to be add to the discussion.

I saw it within the last month or so, and it was just as captivating as the first time I saw it. Interestingly, I read a bit a trivia about the movie that said when Jane's dad, Lester, throws the asparagus against the wall, he was supposed to throw it on the floor. The reactions of Annette Bening and Thora Birch are genuine.

Leelee Sobieski auditioned to play Jane.

Kate Hudson auditioned for the role of Angela, Jane's friend.

Holly Hunter and Helen Hunt were considered for the role of Carolyn Burnham, Jane's mother.

Kevin Costner, Jeff Daniels, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta and Bruce Willis were all considered for the role of Lester Burnham.

Chevy Chase turned down the role of Lester Burnham due to his policy of only doing family films.
source


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Kevin Costner, Jeff Daniels, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta and Bruce Willis were all considered for the role of Lester Burnham.

And I am very glad non of them got the role. Spacey, like pretty much like everything I've seen him in, fit the role very well. That, and it is definitely not a Travolta or Willis type of flick.
And I did re watch it, and, yeah, definitely not exploitation. She was not only being a teenaged girl, it was showing how much Ricky had lifted her up (and it's not like you got to see that much anyways - and she did it despite her earlier insecurities and desires for breast augmentation), which was later confirmed by how she had been given the strength and courage to leave behind a bad friend and even a bad family. And even when Angela's breasts were exposed, that wasn't exploitation either, but a very powerful scene in how people can over compensate for their insecurities and desires to be fit in.
And even though Lester does die, it's still a very moving and touching film, because as he says, there is so much beauty in the world.

 

[dawny0826]

Taking your use of "exploited" to mean

" transitive verb:
to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>"
Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
​

I fail to see how it qualifies. In the case of Thora Birch in American Beauty, after considering the significance of the scene to the movie, both she and her parents willing gave their approval; no meanness or unfairness involved at all. As for "sexually," I know for a fact that many people can look at a bare female breast without thinking of them as sexual. And, in the movie it's quite evident that the scene was not made to sexually titillate or arouse the audience, but to better define Jane's character and her relationship with Rickey. So, "exploited sexually"? Certainly not in this case.


.

I find it feasible that the image of a sixteen year old girl's bare breasts would get some sicko off.

Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery. Within the context cited in American Beauty - it was a scene designed to suggest that she was attempting to arouse/entice the neighbor guy.

You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like. I'm not swayed from my stance.

Perhaps if I wasn't the mother of a teenage girl and didn't grow up worried about the sickos that were looking into the windows of minors for sexual kicks, I'd have a different view on the subject.

 

[dawny0826]

How is briefly standing toplessin a window sexual exploitation? How is it sexual at all?

She knew that he was watching her. It was purposefully done to garner reaction.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She knew that he was watching her. It was purposefully done to garner reaction.

And they were in a relationship, and it showed she developed confidence in herself rather the insecurities she was showing (including her breasts) earlier in the movie. There was a lot more going on than just a scene involving her undressing in front of the window for her boyfriend.

 

[Skwim]

I find it feasible that the image of a sixteen year old girl's bare breasts would get some sicko off.

What does this have to do with the sexual exploitation of a teenager in a movie?

Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery.

So, how about the parents who allow their young daughter to wear head-to-toe pajamas in a movie, and some " sicko is aroused by the imagery"? Or how about the parents who allow their young daughter to go barefoot in the sand in a movie, and some " sicko is aroused by the imagery"? Do you really want the "sickos" of the world determining the ethics of the movie industry?

Within the context cited in American Beauty - it was a scene designed to suggest that she was attempting to arouse/entice the neighbor guy.

*Sigh* I give up. See whatever you need to.

You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like.

Well, so far you haven't enunciated your "understanding of exploitation," only given us some cockeyed examples of it.

I'm not swayed from my stance.

And I doubt you're open minded enough to ever be. Intractability is seldom an admirable character trait.

Perhaps if I wasn't the mother of a teenage girl and didn't grow up worried about the sickos that were looking into the windows of minors for sexual kicks, I'd have a different view on the subject.

And no doubt it's this biased attitude that's got your morals so tied up in knots. My sympathy to the both of you.



.

 

[dawny0826]

And they were in a relationship, and it showed she developed confidence in herself rather the insecurities she was showing (including her breasts) earlier in the movie. There was a lot more going on than just a scene involving her undressing in front of the window for her boyfriend.

So what? Doesn't erase the uncomfortable fact that he was videotaping her and without her permission. Even if it translated to a triumphant moment for her, there's still a creep factor to the entire scene. That's just the way I feel about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what? Doesn't erase the uncomfortable fact that he was videotaping her and without her permission.

How was it not without her permission at that point? She even waved at him before starting to undress.

 

[dawny0826]

What does this have to do with the sexual exploitation of a teenager in a movie?

You asked parents if they would approve of their 16 year old daughter going topless in such a scene. I answered your question and cited one of my concerns for allowing such participation.

So, how about the parents who allow their young daughter to wear head-to-toe pajamas in a movie, and some " sicko is aroused by the imagery"? Or how about the parents who allow their young daughter to go barefoot in the sand in a movie, and some " sicko is aroused by the imagery"? Do you really want the "sickos" of the world determining the ethics of the movie industry?

What's the context of the scene? I'm commenting on a scene where a minor bares her breasts.

*Sigh* I give up. See whatever you need to.

Just what it is that I'm not seeing?

Well, so far you haven't enunciated your "understanding of exploitation," only given us some cockeyed examples of it.

Really? I thought you asked a pretty straight forward question, to which, I answered. You didn't ask for clarification, in fairness. You posted a definition and insinuated that I was wrong.

And I doubt you're open minded enough to ever be. Intractability isn't necessarily an admirable character trait.

Presumptuousness isn't often considered admirable.

And no doubt it's this biased attitude that's got your ethics so tied up in knots. My condolences to the both of you.

It's the callousness, selfishness and cruelty of certain men that challenge my ability to look at this situation differently.

.

 

[dawny0826]

How was it not without her permission at that point? She even waved at him before starting to undress.

I'm going to have to find the scene on youtube and let it marinate for a while...

 

[Skwim]

You asked parents if they would approve of their 16 year old daughter going topless in such a scene. I answered your question and cited one of my concerns for allowing such participation.

Not in the post you were responding to. If you want to jump around, fine, just let us know where you're jumping from.

What's the context of the scene? I'm commenting on a scene where a minor bares her breasts.

You said "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery." And I'm talking about the inadvertence you bring up: the nature of an action is defined by its inadvertent consequence. Because letting one's daughter go barefoot in the sand happens to arouse some sicko, that action becomes exploitation. This is nonsense.

Just what it is that I'm not seeing?

That instead of seeing the scene as depicting ". . . a girl with very low self esteem who meets a guy who is pretty weird, and the scene in questions shows she has developed at least enough confidence to not shamefully hide herself in the background as she usually does.. . . they were in a relationship, and it showed she developed confidence in herself rather the insecurities she was showing (including her breasts) earlier in the movie." * you see it as designed to suggest that Jane was attempting to arouse/entice the neighbor guy. It's far, far more than this.

Really? I thought you asked a pretty straight forward question, to which, I answered. You didn't ask for clarification, in fairness. You posted a definition and insinuated that I was wrong.

You said, "You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like." when you haven't given your understanding of exploitation. Examples of X are not the same as providing an understanding of X, and I'm not about to start guessing what your understanding is.

Presumptuousness isn't often considered admirable.

You don't think that "You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like. I'm not swayed from my stance." isn't an intractable stance? I sure do. It comes down to: "No matter what you say, I'm sticking to my guns." That's being intractable.

It's the callousness, selfishness and cruelty of certain men that challenge my ability to look at this situation differently..

And that's too bad. As I said in regard to the motion picture industry, "Do you really want the "sickos" of the world determining the ethics of the movie industry?" Perspective dawny0826. Perspective. The nature of an action is NOT defined by a singular inadvertent consequence.



* My thanks to Shadow Wolf for these insights.

 

[dawny0826]

Not in the post you were responding to. If you want to jump around, fine, just let us know where you're jumping from.

You said "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."

I didn't project this as a blanket label statement. I projected this within the context of a minor being utilized topless in a movie scene.

And I'm talking about the inadvertence you bring up: the nature of an action is defined by its inadvertent consequence. Because letting one's daughter go barefoot in the sand happens to arouse some sicko, that action becomes exploitation. This is nonsense.

I didn't bring up inadvertence in this context. If someone was aroused by my daughter in shorts and sandals, I'm not at all responsible for their sick thoughts. I didn't purposefully allow for them to do something that garners an audience - garners reaction.

If I allow my daughter to participate in a scene that's designed to be impactful, I'm accountable for anything negative that could befall her as a result.

For me, this is about doing what's right for my daughter when she's not legally of age to make a decision for herself and handle any negative consequences that could occur.

That instead of seeing the scene as depicting ". . . a girl with very low self esteem who meets a guy who is pretty weird, and the scene in questions shows she has developed at least enough confidence to not shamefully hide herself in the background as she usually does.. . . they were in a relationship, and it showed she developed confidence in herself rather the insecurities she was showing (including her breasts) earlier in the movie." * you see it as designed to suggest that Jane was attempting to arouse/entice the neighbor guy. It's far, far more than this.

Okay. I can't argue this. Even when discussing the movie with Father Heathen yesterday evening, I realized that time has warped my remembrance of certain scenes. I remembered Lester's death differently than it played out, as an example.

You said, "You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like." when you haven't given your understanding of exploitation. Examples of X are not the same as providing an understanding of X, and I'm not about to start guessing what your understanding is.

Something or someone is exploited when it/they are utilized to full advantage for gain.

This doesn't necessarily have to be negative. Youth actors and actresses are often talented and I don't find it inappropriate in blanket label terms for youth to act. My concern is when a scene has the potential to invoke sexual imagery. Even if not intentional, it's hard for me not to construe a degree of sexual exploitation, when the participating youth can't lawfully make the decision to participate at their own volition.

You don't think that "You're free to argue my understanding of exploitation all you'd like. I'm not swayed from my stance." isn't an intractable stance? I sure do. It comes down to: "No matter what you say, I'm sticking to my guns." That's being intractable.

I agree with you that I've projected a rather intractable stance on this subject. If you were implying that I'm an intractable person, I would consider that a rather presumptuous implication.

And that's too bad. As I said in regard to the motion picture industry, "Do you really want the "sickos" of the world determining the ethics of the movie industry?" Perspective dawny0826. Perspective. The nature of an action is NOT defined by a singular inadvertent consequence.

No, I don't. As a parent, there are certain types of movies or scenes that I would not allow my minor daughter to participate in. That doesn't mean that I believe that youth should be excluded from acting. I believe it the responsibility of the audience/consumer to drive/influence the ethics of the movie industry.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't bring up inadvertence in this context.

Sure you did. You said
"Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."

If someone was aroused by my daughter in shorts and sandals, I'm not at all responsible for their sick thoughts. I didn't purposefully allow for them to do something that garners an audience - garners reaction.

Yet you say:
"Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."

Something or someone is exploited when it/they are utilized to full advantage for gain.

And I said to you in post 120:

Taking your use of "exploited" to mean

" transitive verb:
to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>"
Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary​

I fail to see how it qualifies.
​

Notice the "unfairly" part. It's critical to the meaning of "exploited."


.

 

[dawny0826]

Sure you did. You said
"Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."


Yet you say:
"Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."


And I said to you in post 120:

Taking your use of "exploited" to mean

" transitive verb:
to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>"
Source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary​

I fail to see how it qualifies.​

Notice the "unfairly" part. It's critical to the meaning of "exploited."


.

I did not and I've clarified my intent with that statement several times now and will do so one last time: I made that statement within the context of parents providing permission for their minor daughter to reveal her breasts for a movie scene.

I was discussing imagery/action that is purposefully intended to make an impact upon an audience. The scene is purposeful.

I said this:

My concern is when a scene has the potential to invoke sexual imagery. Even if not intentional, it's hard for me not to construe a degree of sexual exploitation, when the participating youth can't lawfully make the decision to participate at their own volition.

I do not consider it fair to request that a minor remove their clothing in a movie, when they are not legally able to consent by their own volition. It would be neglectful not to consider the possibility of exploitation within such context.

 

[Skwim]

Sure you did. You said
"Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery."

I did not and I've clarified my intent with that statement several times now and will do so one last time: I made that statement within the context of parents providing permission for their minor daughter to reveal her breasts or a movie scene.

Take a look at post 128.