Go ahead. Take your top off

[dawny0826]

Take a look at post 128.

Before that statement, I said, this, did I not?

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

Clearly, I was speaking to something specific. Within this thread, we're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene, are we not?

Is there anyone else who read my posts as you did?

 

[Skwim]

Before that statement, I said, this, did I not?

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

Clearly, I was speaking to something specific. Within this thread, we're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene, are we not?

Is there anyone else who read my posts as you did?

But it's not relevant. Your statement

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

is not dependent on the specific instance you cite: a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene. It stands on its own merit. What it says is: the intent of the parent(s) is dependent on the arousal of the "first sicko." Now, does this make any sense to you, whether you're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene or some other act? Does the arousal of the first sicko really determine the past intent of someone else?


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Many states do consider the age of 16 to be old enough. I've joked for years that Indiana is rather messed up because someone can have sex with a Playboy Bunny at 16, but he has to wait two more years to see her pictures in the magazine.

 

[idav]

But it's not relevant. Your statement

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

is not dependent on the specific instance you cite: a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene. It stands on its own merit. What it says is: the intent of the parent(s) is dependent on the arousal of the "first sicko." Now, does this make any sense to you, whether you're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene or some other act? Does the arousal of the first sicko really determine the past intent of someone else?


.

The morality really is in the harm right? If there are foreseen consequence then there is harm but it really depends on the extent of any said exploitation. Scenes like that can easily be done in poor taste.

What your describing though can be foreseen, a parent would be exploiting a kid by allowing a topless scene because they know the world they live in.

 

[Valjean]

Fifty years from now bare arms or legs might be tabu, or kissing, or violence. Who knows? Tastes and standards of propriety are always changing.
I don't see how the shot was shocking, exploitative or inappropriate.
I don't see were any harm was done -- most people probably already knew she had breasts, anyway.

 

[Skwim]

The morality really is in the harm right?

What harm are you talking about?

If there are foreseen consequence then there is harm but it really depends on the extent of any said exploitation.

Not all unforeseen consequences are harmful, and no one's talking about exploitation.

Scenes like that can easily be done in poor taste.

That they could. And isn't it nice that the one In American Beauty isn't one of them.

What your describing though can be foreseen, a parent would be exploiting a kid by allowing a topless scene because they know the world they live in.

Just what is it about knowing "the world they live in"---whatever that refers to---makes their approval of the scene exploitation?


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see were any harm was done -- most people probably already knew she had breasts, anyway.

Especially since she wasn't playing with them or touching them in any way. And then she covered up real quick when Ricky's dad stormed his room and kicked the crap out of him (over something else, not watching his girlfriend undress while having his camera out).

 

[idav]

What harm are you talking about?

I'm saying that morality should be based on harm, if there is none then it is hard to make moral judgement call on it.

That they could. And isn't it nice that the one In American Beauty isn't one of them.

Just what is it about knowing "the world they live in"---whatever that refers to (?)---makes their approval of the scene exploitation?
.

The 42 year old man almost having sex with a daughters friend sounds inappropriate. If a parent doesn't approve of the real life scenario then it is exploitation for profit. I might think different if they kept the older gentleman out of it. Its a tough one though since it really wasn't done in poor taste and the man kept his wits about him for the most part. Makes it harder to rationalize harm coming from it when a film is smartly done while hitting on some controversial issues..

 

[Skwim]

The 42 year old man almost having sex with a daughters friend sounds inappropriate.

I agree, but remember this is fiction. Thora Birch exposing her breast in a movie at age 16 isn't fictional.

If a parent doesn't approve of the real life scenario then it is exploitation for profit.

Almost all scenes in movies are there to help make a movie profitable. And, of course, parents aren't always asked to approve of them. Think Shirley Temple's parents or Judy Garland's parents were asked to approve every scene they were in?


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The 42 year old man almost having sex with a daughters friend sounds inappropriate. If a parent doesn't approve of the real life scenario then it is exploitation for profit. I might think different if they kept the older gentleman out of it. Its a tough one though since it really wasn't done in poor taste and the man kept his wits about him for the most part. Makes it harder to rationalize harm coming from it when a film is smartly done while hitting on some controversial issues..

That was the character though, a major plot point, and a reflection of just how badly his marriage had failed. He was miserable, and he saw this pretty girl, eavesdropped on her and his daughter, and bought her lies of sexual adventures hook, line, and sinker. And after he and his wife ran his daughter off (she took off with Ricky), he tried to have sex with her, but when she apologized in advance just in case she wasn't that good because it was her first time, and then it hit them both how their lives were in shambles.
Really, it's a movie you're going to have to watch, because you can't really judge it or form any sort of reasonable opinion about it if you haven't. It's a very deep movie, and it is at times dark and transgressive. But it isn't a movie about a happy family going on a zany adventure for vacation, it is about a family that is falling apart, their shortcomings, their back stabbings, and their inappropriate behaviors (his wife does cheat on him, and she was going to kill him, but the neighbor beat her to it). There are also numerous underlying themes found throughout the movie.
Really, it's like trying to judge The Wall when all you've seen is a picture of the school kids walking into a meat grinder. No, the character of Pink isn't really that of a "good person," he abuses drugs, and turns totalitarian and violent, but to focus on this "bad" is to totally miss the point of the film and not see the good behind it. It's something you have to watch, or else you're going to have two people attempt to explain the best they can in ways that don't really do the film any justice because it's pretty deep and hard to explain because there is so much to explain.

 

[Draka]

But it's not relevant. Your statement

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

is not dependent on the specific instance you cite: a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene. It stands on its own merit. What it says is: the intent of the parent(s) is dependent on the arousal of the "first sicko." Now, does this make any sense to you, whether you're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene or some other act? Does the arousal of the first sicko really determine the past intent of someone else?


.

I've watched this back and forth for a while and I have to say...you are being unfair. You most certainly are taking her words out of context. The context in which someone says something matters. @dawny0826 was not speaking generally and I think you know that. You are coming off as picking a fight just to be obnoxious here Skwim. It is one thing to disagree with her position on this specific issue, I do as well, it is another, however, to try to blow up what she said to a ridiculous end which she has stated time and again was not what she was talking about.

 

[Skwim]

I've watched this back and forth for a while and I have to say...you are being unfair. You most certainly are taking her words out of context. The context in which someone says something matters. @dawny0826 was not speaking generally and I think you know that.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There is no reason to suppose that "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery." only applies to the Thora Birch episode. Now, if dawny would have said, "Even if the parental intent is was not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery." I might have taken it as a specific remark about the episode. But this isn't even my point. In fact, the context is moot. My point is that the arousal of the first sicko doesn't determine the past intent of someone else. which is exactly what dawny's remark says. Read it over carefully. It holds true no matter if the issues is about dawny0826's context of exposed breasts or something else.

You are coming off as picking a fight just to be obnoxious here Skwim. It is one thing to disagree with her position on this specific issue, I do as well, it is another, however, to try to blow up what she said to a ridiculous end which she has stated time and again was not what she was talking about.

I've only replied to those posts that showed dawny0826 was not getting my point. That dawny0826 failed to get it, and I had to keep rephrasing it, is unfortunate. But go ahead and take my attempt to help her understand as picking a fight just to be obnoxious. If that's how you see it then that's how you see it.


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Even if the parental intent is was not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery." I might have taken it as a specific remark about the episode. But this isn't even my point.

All you're doing is arguing grammar and trying to say it's more than that. Technically "the parental intent" is correct because it is referring to the intentions of Thora Birch's parents, and "was" is the appropriate word given it is an event that happened in the past. But, regardless, even with those changes, it doesn't change the way the sentence reads or the meaning of it. It's still understood what she means, and those edits do not change the meaning at all.

 

[Skwim]

All you're doing is arguing grammar and trying to say it's more than that.

Her syntax is fine and holds together well enough to make here meaning quite clear. So, what more am I trying to say it is? Parse the meaning of the sentence if you will and show me where I'm in error. Here it is:

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

.​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Her syntax is fine and holds together well enough to make here meaning quite clear.

Then it makes no sense why you would claim that those insignificant changes would have had you taking the statement in a different light. You understand what she means, you know what she means, thus the specifics of grammar are irrelevant.

My point is that the arousal of the first sicko doesn't determine the past intent of someone else. which is exactly what dawny's remark says. Read it over carefully. It holds true no matter if the issues is about dawny0826's context of exposed breasts or something else.

Actually, about then was when I stopped paying that much attention to the thread because too many people are judging the movie without having ever watched it. And though I agree that someone getting aroused doesn't determine intention (foot fetish, anyone?), it's still nothing more than picking a fight to keep bringing up the stuff you do, such as you may "have taken it as a specific remark about the episode" if Dawny had worded the sentence differently.

 

[Skwim]

Then it makes no sense why you would claim that those insignificant changes would have had you taking the statement in a different light. You understand what she means, you know what she means, thus the specifics of grammar are irrelevant.

JUST TO PUT AN END TO THIS SILLINESS

Every post I made to dawny0826 in reference to what she said said in post 128, specifically: "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery.," was in response to a previous post of hers that she addressed to me.

If she didn't want any further response from me all she would have had to do was not respond to me, OR ask me not to reply. That others here have seen fit to stick their noses into the nature of our exchange is kind of puzzling, but what the hey, slow news days sometimes does this to people. Go figure.


.

 

[Draka]

JUST TO PUT AN END TO THIS SILLINESS

Every post I made to dawny0826 in reference to what she said said in post 128, specifically: "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery.," was in response to a previous post of hers that she addressed to me.

If she didn't want any further response from me all she would have had to do was not respond to me, OR ask me not to reply. That others here have seen fit to stick their noses into the nature of our exchange is kind of puzzling, but what the hey, slow news days sometimes does this to people. Go figure.


.

By that I might assume that even though a conversation is between two people, publicly, that you feel no one should say anything if one is apparently bullying the other.

You said:

There is no reason to suppose that "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery." only applies to the Thora Birch episode.

Except there is darn good reason to suppose that as she has said as much. She spoke in a context, she reiterated that context, she has corrected you several times now that she was not speaking as generally as you try to make it out. No matter how many times you have been corrected as to what she meant you have repeatedly tried to twist her words to mean something she did not intend. You apparently have a future in politics.

Oh, and I'll stick my nose in where I see fit.

 

[dawny0826]

But it's not relevant. Your statement

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

is not dependent on the specific instance you cite: a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene. It stands on its own merit. What it says is: the intent of the parent(s) is dependent on the arousal of the "first sicko." Now, does this make any sense to you, whether you're talking about a minor revealing her breasts in a movie scene or some other act? Does the arousal of the first sicko really determine the past intent of someone else?


.

It is relevant, as it confirms the situational context by which I intended for my statement to be considered. If I provided no such clarification, I would understand where you're coming from.

Neither you, in your original post nor I in responses have mentioned a female minor revealing her breasts within any other context. Even if my grammar or use of verbiage hasn't been perfect, I genuinely do not feel that I've been unclear.

I hope that at this juncture, you're clear as to what I intended to convey even if you're not of the opinion that I conveyed my thoughts properly.

 

[dawny0826]

JUST TO PUT AN END TO THIS SILLINESS

Every post I made to dawny0826 in reference to what she said said in post 128, specifically: "Even if parental intent is not to sexually exploit their daughter, they inadvertently do so when the first sicko is aroused by the imagery.," was in response to a previous post of hers that she addressed to me.

If she didn't want any further response from me all she would have had to do was not respond to me, OR ask me not to reply. That others here have seen fit to stick their noses into the nature of our exchange is kind of puzzling, but what the hey, slow news days sometimes does this to people. Go figure.
.

I think I welcomed a bit of critique as to how clearly I may or may not have conveyed my thoughts in post number 141.

I appreciate the support from Draka and Shadow Wolf, especially since we have differing views on the topic at hand. I expected that I might receive feedback in support of your understanding, which would have been okay too.

This is an open debate/discussion thread. Asking someone to refrain from replying or accusing people of sticking their noses into the nature of an exchange is puzzling to me. My concern with your unfairness is no less silly than your concern with my grammar and (presumed) character flaws.

I wouldn't bother participating in these types of threads if I didn't find value in better understanding the perspective of those who have differing views than I.

 

[Skwim]

.

In any case, you people have a fine day.

.
.