title

In fact- while its cliche that every stripper and prostitute and “promiscuous” woman “lacks self respect” or has “issues” beyond what anyone else has- it is true that humans who grow up in certain conditions often do exhibit hyper sexuality in various ways or seek validation through sex, or use sex as the only way they know to leverage power or show affection. So it certainly has a place with her character even if it makes (me and) other viewers uncomfortable. That’s sorta the point. This little girl is “fucked up” but in the end- she can be “ok” with just a little guidance and a real human connection not based on sex.

So my point there is that I get it- I feel the same- when we see anything we feel is exploiting children- our gut reaction is to label it as filth. But- there are questions about artistic merit, message- does a thing serve a purpose and if so to what end? What is the story that is being told? What’s the real message?

Putting little girls in make up to make them “more attractive” to sell tickets to an adult audience is gross. Taking actors and having them portray little girls in make up to show something about us and our society- that can have merit. It all depends. I haven’t watched this film. I do not plan to and doubt I will. So I ant say what merit I think it had or if the film had an important message or does things with purpose other than exploitation.

Most people talking about it haven’t seen it either. And we must be very careful as the difference between art and pornography is a very thin and ambiguous line. perhaps the closest we get to a definition is the intent of the creator- what they intended the piece to be used as. But of course- pornography IS itself art isn’t it? So the line is in essence- imaginary. It’s in the eye of the beholder and what one does with a thing.

But this is a very important concept because child pornography is a crime. Child sexualization generally isn’t a crime but society (rightfully) still sees it as wrong. But.... if one takes a photo of their child in the bath- is that child pornography it sexualization? What possible use could one have for a naked child’s photo? Is it better or worse if they never show it to anyone and it is only for them to see? One doesn’t take a picture for no reason. They want to save a memory or they find something pleasing to look at right? Now- most parents aren’t taking naked pictures of their kids because of sexual feelings right? But- if the guide post we use isn’t what the person taking the picture was feeling- but what ANYONE who might see it may feel- then any photo of a child could be porn to a pedophile- but especially certain ones like bath photos no?

It gets really icky really quick when we start breaking this stuff down and really getting in to it. So it’s normal that most people don’t want to think about the implications or the reasoning. We feel icky and that’s enough for us to say “nope.” But- art can make us feel icky. Art makes people feel. It makes us think about ourselves or the world or some aspect of either or other things.

So I’m reluctant to join in on, and apprehensive about- wide spread condemnation of a film that most of the condemners haven’t seen- on the grounds it makes us feel icky. Sometimes the intent is to make you feel icky. To force you to face certain unpleasant realities. The precedent it sets to extinguish art for making us uncomfortable or trespassing into the socially taboo is dangerous.