Gladiator and the Hobbit both have strong messages that the “heroes” and the “good guys” are the “simple” rural folks who are all about family and settling in and living largely peaceful and happy lives while the urban types tend to be treacherous and selfish and twisted and evil with their way of life encroaching on and polluting and destroying everything around them. Many films are somewhat ambiguous or perhaps not overly flattering- those like “Friday Night Lights” or films often centered around racial issues and such with tend to highlight the darker and less idyllic aspects that can exist in rural life (not that they can’t exist anywhere else…) which is part of the earlier point- that to appeal to the widest audience, a film centered around rural settings or characters often needs to carry some concepts that are relatable to people who live other places too.

5. So in conclusion- there isn’t some sort of sudden trend in Hollywood. Not only in Hollywood but in the history of fiction the trope of small town X thrown into the big city has been abundant and has countless variations and examples. LOTR is technically an example- Frodo lives in an idyllic rural town and doesn’t even want to leave. He’s thrust by destiny into an adventure that will take him to the “big cities” of middle earth and the industrial centers like Mordor. So sometimes the rural hero wants to leave and sometimes they are forced. Luke Skywalker fantasized about leaving his rural farm life but was forced to leave when his family and farm were killed and it was implied if he stayed he would be too. Maximus in Gladiator dreamed about returning to his farm- he was a farmer who was in the military- and when it was all taken from him he had to enter the big city with its politics and intrigue in a fight for his life and revenge. Etc etc. some films are very “pro” rural life-

If the buzz after opening is good, in Dallas you sell 1000 tickets the first day and maybe 2000 the next. If the buzz is good in Yellowknife you sell maybe 15 tickets the first day and maybe 50 the second?
Simple numbers. You have the theater capacity to seat 60,000 people for the opening show of your movie in Chicago and 60,000 new customers could come every day for months if it was a well liked film.
In many rural towns 60,000 is the population of the entire town, or more than the population. So sure- there is some bias in these things when it comes to rural markets often because of factors like those and of course that’s without getting into political generalities which I will leave alone.

Rural America isn’t always the primary audience to target if you want to make huge returns on a film. I mean- it wouldnt be rural if all the people lived there right? So where do most people live? Large urban and suburban centers. So when a story is being made to make money- or lots of things really- there can be a focus on urban and suburban markets because there are more people. Now, when you add up ALL the people living spaced out in “rural” areas there are ALOT- and a lot of money. So it also is generally unwise to forget the market entirely- but think of it this way- if you sell hot dogs on a random corner in New York City 10,000 potential customers may walk by each day. Do that in rural America and get what.. 0-30 maybe 100 or so potential customers a day?
So that one seems self evident. It’s easier and faster to put a film in 3 theaters and sell 1000 tickets each and make a profit than put it into 30 theaters and sell 100 tickets each and do the same.

Films, or at least large production mainstream films, tend to largely be centered around specific highly populated areas and so you are likely to find people from those areas and when you find people living and working in those areas who are from rural areas- they USUALLY aren’t people who were totally happy there and loved the life and the people because if they were they maybe wouldn’t have left right? So that’s a big thing- the people who leave these rural places because they feel like they aren’t welcomed or don’t fit in etc. and seek places where there are more people so better chances of finding people “like them” etc. so there certainly can be some bias on the back end of the story but there’s also often bias at the front because….

4. These stories aren’t always kind to the places or people. Wether the writer or primary world shapers and story shapers behind a book or film have any first hand experience in the settings or with the people they wrote about is it’s own issue. It’s also the case that people tend to be most interested in certain aspects of a place or group and this can change with time or stay the same. So of course a lot of films and works focusing on rural stories in rural settings tend to focus on things like racism or prejudice, poverty or disparity, and related elements.
The fiction is most often shaped by both the author and their experiences and views as well as the intended audience and theirs. Books can often be much more open in that sense as in the modern age a popular book can be written from almost any wage te by almost anyone.

3. It isn’t that you can’t make stories that are only set in one place or you can’t make good stories that are only set in a rural setting. The list of films and books that take place entirely in rural settings is incalculable (at least for me.. lol.) without going back to antiquity (which we could) we have classics like “What’s eating Gilbert Grape” “Where the Red Fern Grows” “Oh Brother Where Art Thou” “October Sky” “Second Hand Lions” “Wind River” “Broke Back Mountain,” I mean… when we start adding “historical” including westerns and crime as well as other films it starts to get really long but those were just off the top of my head in like 10 seconds. If we include films that mostly take place in rural settings or which have protagonists from rural settings that don’t seek to leave them or seek to return the list gets even longer.

headed out west to make it as stars or artists. The tech centers often find those from all over who seek to become tech workers or the “next innovator” who turns an idea into a billion dollar empire etc. and while it is possible- in modern historical context your odds of becoming a star or making a huge fortune from nothing tend to be higher in these urban centers than in a corn field. Marilyn Monroe herself came from a rural farming town and after some notoriety for pageantry was scouted and brought to the “big city.”

Stereotypes.
And it does hold true- many from the big city fantasize of the “simple” country life and aesthetic, lower cost of living, no traffic, close communities or what not. Those with wealth from the big city have often owned homes “in the country” to “get away to” and things like renting air BnB in the “country” just for the “air and views” have been popular. In the pandemic we saw mass migration of “city folk” to more rural areas where prices were cheaper and they felt the quality of life was better (especially when work from home allowed them to take their often much higher than average salaries with them…) and vice versa. Since forever- with works in film dating AT LEAST to the 1830’s and books going back to antiquity- the fantasy of many, especially younger people, in rural life has been to go to the big cities with their “culture” and “fashion” and all the “fancy” jobs and such. Hollywood is full of kids from the Midwest and all over rural America and rural California who

2. It’s accurate and generally relatable through much of history which is why we see variations on the theme through much of history and especially modern history. That is to say that not every person from a rural place dreams of the big city- or even most; and the same is true that not every city person freaks of the country- but the concept has long stood, at the very least since the Industrial Age, that those crowded into dirty cities full of corruption and suffering and immorality and cut throat competition and faced paced stressful living and urban blight and danger can “get away” to the “slower, simpler, kinder, cleaner, ethical, beautiful” country free of big city crime and exploitation. And that those from the country where life can be boring, opportunity sparce, views provincial or small, wealth limited, luxuries limited etc. could run to the city and fine wealth or fame or excitement etc. now these things aren’t inherently the truth of either place- but common perceptions and

1b. There are some other little ones I won’t go too far into. In a visual media like film the visual contrast in setting and backdrop like clothing etc. can be used to create spectacle. In visual or text media etc. the fact that country and city ways of life, politics, philosophies, values etc. are often different can be explored. It’s an easy set up for all sorts of stories and presides and messages because you’ve set up a situation where these two very seemingly or superficially different cultures meet so you can explore any number of things, make statements on capitalism, heritage, progress vs. slower pace, etc etc.

1a. Continuing on mechanics- not always but often, especially in da stash etc. where the world isn’t OUR world it identical to it- the story uses an “outsider” as a character which is often the main character. This “outsider” isn’t savvy to the “ways of the larger world”
The same way is the audience aren’t. This allows them both to sort of be our “avatar” but also gives a method through which the author can explain the works or uncover its wonders to the audience in a “natural” and unobtrusive way. So the “outsider” who is often the MC or a primary character, is usually a “fish out of water.” Taking a character from the big city and moving them to the country/small town is a classic device (Doc Hollywood, hope floats, under the Tuscan Sun, Ground Hogs Day l, Field of Dreams, etc.) and so is country to city as well. The two settings are vastly different which gives contrast and the set up for why our character, even an otherwise capable character, might be “out of their depth”

This last part has just been an interesting asides. The overarching point was that linguistically this os incorrect or probably not something that should be supported, but the use of language in such matters is important and something we should consider and discuss.

That’s a tangent. I won’t get too deep there except to point out that discussions of sexuality in general can be uncomfortable as we explore them. As many know, our sexual preferences and things we look for in partners are often influenced by parents or care giver figures. What they provided or what we didn’t get from them, things like that. The creepy man looking for a woman “just like his mom” or the younger woman dating much older men because of her “daddy issues” and all these cliches- cliches we see and which often hold truth in society. So it can be said even beyond sexuality that when we start to REALLY dissect and analyze things about ourselves and our views things can get uncomfortable and gross very quickly.

The general social attitude is not the same. A man who has sex with a person who appears female and is attracted to that female appearance but is biologically male and/or possesses male genitals will most often be considered as “gay.” But- much the same as the woman with the lanky soft jawed hairless boyfriend- we know he’s an adult and we know the transsexual here is a biological male- but is the woman attracted to her seemingly boyish Parker BECAUSE she likes the look of young boys? Is she a “pedophile”? Most would say no. Most would say having a woman with an AA cup and narrow hips and a short torso who is 5’ even isn’t a sign a man likes minors- even find that question offensive.
But… a man or woman who is attracted to another biological male or female because they appear to be of the opposite sex is considered homosexually inclined…?

So then- the term “minor attracted person” is wholly inadequate for the task and is most certainly NOT a direct replacement of the term “pedophile.” While there are all sorts of twists and turns and uncomfortable pocket cases and such to consider when discussing the larger matter, it simply doesn’t work to use the term “minor attracted person” when referring to a pedophile. It simply is too vague and too “soft” in its perception linguistically to be used with any moral compass in describing a person with a sickness of this nature.
It is however interesting that if we apply the same thought process which makes society adverse to the idea of two adults having sex where one has traits or the appearance of a minor or otherwise presents themselves as a minor; if we apply that same lens to someone like a transsexual…

But why? There are people who have various genetic and other factors wherein they literally appear to be minors- their developments stops or doesn’t complete at all, often they are of extremely little height. One woman with such a condition spoke once on her life and lamented relationships. She said it was extremely hard to find someone who would consider her as a partner because she literally looks like a prepubescent child, but that any men who would consider her as a partner she is very leery of as they are men who would consider a relationship with someone who looks like a child. That sort of illustrates the point. She is an adult- there is nothing illegal or immoral in dating her or having relations or activity with her as an adult with the legal rights and mental capacity of a mature adult. But- she looks like a child. And what healthy minded adults could be intimate while looking at someone who looks like a child?

While Australia’s supposed “small breast ban” is not correct- when considering wether to allow adult media of a sexual nature their board does consider wether
media is attempting to create a perception or imply that legally aged persons appearing in sexual material are underage. This is one example of where this is an actual consideration. The legal compulsion and moral offense of sexual activity towards minors comes from the exploitation of those unable to make informed decisions and ultimately unable to appropriately defend themselves against such exploitation or be aware they are being exploited.
So then… if an act takes place between adults wherein one or more adults appears to be, is presented as, is materially similar in appearance to, pretends to be or imitates, or is indistinguishable from a child- where enters the issue? We have an issue with it by and large. I sure do. It’s gross.

.. mistaken for such, lacks facial or body hair etc and other secondary sex characteristics which indicate one had completed maturing as an adult. Now obviously an adult mind is the thing that is of critical importance in this as a moral and legal issue- but when we use language like “attraction to…” we open these doors where we have to ask these icky questions.
An ex of mine used to say: “why do so many men want a woman with the butt of a 10yo boy?” When speaking on the subject of a predilection of men to women with small frames and a lack of “curves” defining their figure. That sounds rather harsh and sexist to say that a woman without “curves” looks like a child- but if we examine it free from politics and considerations of feelings and such- one of the defining characteristics of a minor or prepubescent/adolescent minor is a lack of the shapes and forms of a developed body.

But then what do we call this person? If they were attracted to a person they believed was an adult and appeared to be of adult development they were not attracted to a minor in the sense that what they found attractive was an adult form or presence. They were attracted to a minor in the sense that they were attracted to a person who is in fact a legal minor. Legally or conceptually we may be able to classify that as an attraction to a minor but clinically or logically they wouldn’t meet the criteria to say they are attracted specifically to minors because they are minors or by the features of a minor. Of course- many men and women are attracted to adult partners who have characteristics common to younger people. Underdeveloped bodies are a point of attraction for many offenders but an adult woman who perhaps might look underdeveloped but has completed development or an adult man who doesn’t have the muscle and physical structure that appears obviously post pubescent and could be..

Are the behaviors so different? Can people not appear older than they are or pretend to be older than they are? So let us say that a person engages in sexual actions with a 16yo whom 99% of people based on looks and presentation would believe was 18 or older. Say that 16yo had presented themselves falsely as over 18 and had convincing falsified identification or documents to seemingly confirm this and/or were in a place such as an 18 or 21 and older restricted venue where one might expect that it could be assumed they were of legal age. So a crime has conceivably occurred. Wether local laws or a judge or jury or DA would pursue it or treat it as a crime is open- but the basic criteria under US law for a criminal act and under a society where such acts are deplored a moral infraction has been committed.

A “minor” is anyone whom is under the far on consent/legal adulthood. As previously stated, a pedophile is attracted to a group of minors but by definition isn’t attracted to all minors as those minors aged beyond the early years of childhood whom fit the definition of pedophilia are still minors but not generally or inherently of interest to someone matching the clinical definition of a pedophile. So “minor attracted person” COULD apply to a wide range of people attracted to minors, but it doesn’t cover acts beyond attraction and it doesn’t cover the general act of sex or sexual conduct with minors where there may not be an attraction based on that status or the status may be unknown or unknowable in general. For example- and I said this was an uncomfortable topic- a person might appear older and seem older than they are. Can the average person tell on sight a 17yo from any random 18yo?

As an addendum the term “minor attracted person” isn’t one of advocate I don’t think. On consideration- not only could the term be construed as “softening” the condition or acts- which benefits the predator and not the minor in society and perception, the term is also inaccurate or overly precise.
For example- many men could be called “Scarlet Johansen attracted individuals.”
Being attracted to Ms. Johansen doesn’t mean that those men have ever engaged in acts or conversations of a sexual nature with or towards her. It doesn’t even necessarily imply that they would approach Miss Johansen or proposition her or even take her up on a proposition were she to offer- as they might for various reasons such as other relationships or lack of initiative etc. never do such a thing. One whom is attracted to Scarlett Johansen may not look at explicit or sexual material of her etc. so compared to the term “pedophile” the term “minor attracted person” doesn’t encompass the condition. More over-