You know, A Time to Kill (1996) contains a very disturbing child rape scene, one that lasts much longer than a minute and contains more detail than a couple cutaway shots. Yet I can't recall any public outcry surrounding the release of that movie when it opened twelve years ago. Which makes me wonder, why now? I tend to think that it's because Dakota Fanning has a much higher profile than the young actress from ATTK and has thus drawn more attention.

Which makes me sad, because when you view it from that perspective, it seems like it's not the actual issue of exploitation that bothers people--it's THIS child, THIS depiction. It's this particular blonde-and-blue-eyed symbol of youth that people suddenly want to protect.

And that provides an interesting almost-parallel to what Kampmeier says about people having a hard time accepting and nurturing female sexuality and exploration. Fanning is maturing as an actress, is taking on mature themes, and the world can't abide it.

The Vagina Monologues contains a scene where a 13 year old girl talks about her rape by an older lesbian, aged 24. In the original text, she calls it a "good rape".

Consistent with feminist thinking, that rape/pedophilia was glossed over in the play, in comparison to the strong, blanket anti-male sentiment expressed regarding male-female rapes referred to in the play.

That scene was excised in later versions of the play for reasons obvious to almost everybody but the playwright.

Is not necessarily the dipiction of rape or abuse but that movies that would try to explore these themes and issues tend to be demonized while there are tons of movies and television programs that pretend to condemn violence that celebrate and revel in it. Off hand I can think of several but one good example are the Law and Order Programs- particulalry the 'Special Vitims Unit' which is all about tsk, tsking violence against women and children - but are ghastly violence and victimzation porn. They get to have their cake- 'we celebrate bringing jusitce to victims!' and get it eat it too by conjuring up horrible images of violence of the worst sort. I have a weak stomach for these things but I'd much rather watch a teen horror movie that makes no pretense about taking joy in creating images slaching people to bits (and some of that has some actual wry social commentary) than to watch the snuff tv that that is on every night and someohow maintinas a veneer of decency.

Perhaps that is the difference and the point - ultimately if you want to talk about these things seriously you get boycotted by the Protectors of Women's Virtue (tm). If you want to make violence porn about women and children you can get the green light form major networks and no one says boo so the Protector's of Womens Virtue can have some compelling cautionary tales to keep you adequately scared.

I think the reason there was no comparable outcry over A Time To Kill is pretty obvious. You dance around the reason in your letter ("blonde and blue-eyed") but let's, um, call a spade a spade, shall we? As far as right-wingers are concerned, raping a black girl is just some good ol' boys having some harmless fun.

It's not the feminists protesting against the movie; it's the anti-feminists. Have a look at the Concerned Women for America (of North Carolina) website.

As for the Vagina Monologues... Haven't you noticed how strongly it was criticized, even by some feminists? It's not a black-and-white thing, PJ.

I totally agree with you about L&O:SVU, horrible, horrible show. I just cannot watch all the rape, torture and murder that goes on in the name of we're gonna catch the bad guys. It does make me feel bad for actual police officers that have to investigate those types of crimes. It must be soul deadning.

I know one person who went to Sundance and saw "Hounddog" film, in her opinion it was a really bad movie, very boring in her opinion and she did think the whole rape thing was way overblown.

It's all about protecting white blonde girls, so when they grow up you can have virginal Jessica Simpson. We all know that pretty, thin, white, blonde girls are the most prized in this society. So they are given a more protected status in the sense of oh no, she can't be harmed or even act harmed. They make front page news if they are kidnapped. Have dark hair, or not be white, eh they are not the symbols of angel white goodness so most of society ignores what happens to them.

I think a Time to Kill was ignored partially because of the racial themes, people not wanting to appear racist by getting outraged over the rape of a small black girl.

There wasn't a ton of outrage over The Green Mile either where two white girls were raped and murdered either. To many shades of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Wow, what a bunch of conflicting, controversial, difficult topics this movie seems to touch. It is probably worth seeing just because of the reactions it provokes on people.

I must agree with CeliaInSF. Violence of all kinds is rampant in TV and action movies; the death toll is amazing. And the same people who protest against this child rape scene will not protest against a war scene in which a few dozen people are killed in quick succession by the big action hero. Double standard?

Some topics simply look worse to us. There are some aspects of our hierarchy of values--such as killing and raping people as a war tool in Bosnia being after all less important than one child rape scene in a movie--that we should be probably reflecting on.

Rape and males, males and rape... the Vagina Monologue and its anti-male tirades... protectors of female virtue... she didn't ask for it just because she was exploring her sexuality...

There's something a little sick in our society. Some girls are being persecuted for the mere sin of being interested in their own sexuality. They become 'branded' (remember those reactions to Ms. Clark-Flory article on her sex life?). Some boys are being kept sexually starved by a society that apparently doesn't see the satisfaction of sexual instincts as something worthy of consideration; impossible standards are set, boys get angry, and think that the girl exploring her sexuality is 'asking for it.' The girl doesn't know exactly what she's doing (that's why it's called 'exploring'), the boy doesn't think about how he himself is being demeaned ('they all want it!'). And works like the VM that don't really make it any easier for either of them.

All of this because we don't really know what to do with adolescent sexuality, boys' or girls'. Either we give them too much freedom without any advice and counsel, or then we restrain them so much they end up doing the stupidest things you can think of. What a dichotomy.

Ah, but some people are happy, aren't they? Some traditionalists live honest and decent lives, and never made anybody suffer. Some modernists live honest and decent lives in their erotic paradises, and never made anybody suffer.

Yet the statistics... the examples in movies and literature... the discussions... the pundits' opinions... we have to do something...

How little we all know about sex. What strange ideas about sex there are in our traditions, in our societies. Sex like food. Sex-starved men, sex-curious girls, sex for hire or sale, glamour sex, disgusting sex, mesmerizing sex, addictive sex, too much sex, too little sex aka abstinence ('the least understandable of all perversions'), sex is dangerous, sex fucks your mind, sex is stressful, sex too early makes you lose your childhood, sex is important, sex is God, sex is animal, sex is overvalued, sex is a commodity, sex is messy, sex is divine, sex is... in a sorry state.

What about sex is fun?

All while real people keep looking through the candy shop's windows, not quite clear on the fact that the people apparently having a good time inside are all robots created by movies and based on our own subconscious desires and anxieties.

Oh when will we ever learn? When will we ever ... learn?