I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
I have just watched a film on Youtube with a very beautiful boy. We see him and two other boys naked. Doubtless they were coerced to become naked by the offer of money from the film company.
Please consider this to be part of my 'childish tantrum' against hypocritical US pseudo-morality. No wonder we lost the yoing folk who came here with the strange attitudes displayed by the moral majority here.
This, too, shows that boys can be between a god and a goat, though in a different manner. You will have to watch for a while and watch all the parts.
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
Timmy,
I haven't yet watched the movie you posted here (I will), but my family watched a 1990 Walt Disney film today (Shipwrecked). I think that you would like 14 year old Stian Smestad in this film. He is depicted as brave and noble, and I know you love that. Also he is just as near perfect appearance as any boy. The important thing is that a film like this allows me to enjoy (with my family) the beauty of boyhood, without having to worry that someone is taking advantage of the boy's youthful innocence.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: Norway
Registered: February 2005
Messages: 510
Thanks, Timmy, for bringing back memories of one of the most beautiful and poetic films I've seen, the writer Marcel Pagnol's own (love) story about his childhood, his family and the countryside of Provence. (Two films, actually, "La gloire de mon père" and "Le château de ma mère".)
How the few scenes with the young boys appearing naked can be regarded as offensive, is beyond my grasp, and the beauty of young Julien Ciamaca only adds to the warmth and beauty of the film itself.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
I watched the trailer on IMDB. I'm afraid it is sanitised pap. Standard Disney fodder. It celebrates Walt Disney, not real boys being real boys.
If you want exploitation, look at Disney misrepresentations of childhood. It is this type of thing that gives the USA its weird view on morality, sex, nakedness and so much more.
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
This is a very nice film.
I see a world of difference between this and the goats clip. Goats' nudity is a striptease. In this film the nudity is incidental. There is nudity in films shown in the USA. Have you seen Pele the Conqueror. It's another film about father son relations. I think it's Sweedish. In one scene Pele lies naked in a stream with half a hard on. But that is Ok. It's incidental and it rings true for a youthful frollic. I did similar stuff myself. What's suspicious about Goats is that the boys strip down progressively, which just seems like gratuitous nudity to me. Goats seems to be a boy striptease under a thin veil of bike jumps and somersaults. Why on earth would boys strip to their underwear to do bike jumps? If they did that, they certainly would not put their shoes back on for the jumping as shown in the clip.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
I think you mistake boys at play for something very different indeed. You seem to have studied the goats film with a great deal of care and yet not actually seen anything. But the US attitude to nakedness is not the same as the Russian attitude, not the European attitude. Storyboard shots do show that the brats become fully naked later. They are not flirting with anyone, the storyboard is not sexual and they appear to be messing around in the same way that they are with bikes.
You need to shed the insular view of the USA and the religious claptrap that has been thrust down your throats for so long over sex, nudity and remember that paedophiles do not lurk under every bush. You also need to understand that the human body is not something repellent that has to be hidden under layers of clothing.
What you see as a striptease is a bunch of kids behaving stupidly. That was the whole freaking point of posting it! Why does the fact that they take any of their clothes off at all matter to you? Do you see paedophiles everywhere in real life? Is everything with a kid in it exploitative?
If you want an example of mainstream erotic titillation, Peter Pan with the Sumpter child was on TV here. Now that is erotic exploitation of a semi clothed teenage boy who flirts with the camera in every shot and appears to be more naked than he is.
The point that I posted the original to show has long been lost under this prurient morass of manufactured self righteous "shock".
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
That was it??? The big fuss was that outdoor scene with he brothers? I watched the entire movie with I thought was great reminiscence of naivety of youth. The extraordinaire hermit's bravado squashed by the imaginary eye eating owls!! But for the nudity, there really wasn't anything, I'm sure the purist would have had that scene cut for the frontal in the us if it ran on TV or the theater. I wonder how YOUTUBE was able to run it here without any problem??
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
Timmy, surely you are not as obtuse as you let on to be. I have always rejected generalizations and stereotypes, whether they are applied by me or to me. Many in the US tend to think of those from the UK as snobbish, arrogant, pompous assholes, unwilling to consider any ideas but their own. In the five trips I have had the pleasure of taking to your wonderful county I found these misconceptions to be totally false. My wife has a number of relatives in both England and Wales we have visited and hosted in our home. They also proved to be warm, generous, accepting folks. We had no reason to believe this was not true of the majority of UK inhabitants. However: your recent attacks and misinterpretation of my comments is challenging my beliefs.
Your many references to the US truly smack of prejudice, a quality I certainly do not associate with you. In your travels to the USA have you truly met so many close-minded individuals? Remember, we are a country of over 300,000,000 people. Surely you don’t mean to paint us all with the same brush?
I assume that when you say, “You need to shed the insular view of the USA and the religious claptrap that has been thrust down your throats for so long over sex, nudity and remember that paedophiles do not lurk under every bush. You also need to understand that the human body is not something repellent that has to be hidden under layers of clothing,” you are not speaking to me personally? To the best of my recollection I have never stated my personal feelings about nudity. Surely you don’t believe that the US is the only bastion of “religious claptrap”. You can’t honestly feel that all US citizens share the views of our vociferous, right-wing, “moral majority”. If we did we would not have the president we now do.
When you posted the “god or goat” I assumed you were looking for honest comment, not validation of your feelings about it. I merely pointed out that in the first clip the action seemed contrived and exploitive. I did not feel that way about your second offering. As a matter of fact I fail to see how a thinking person could even compare the two.
To answer your question, no I do not feel that everything with a kid in it is exploitative. That is why I posted about the movie I watched with my family. I will also admit that I did not care for the rendition of Peter Pan you mentioned. I feel that Peter Pan is a story that has no room for eroticism.
I would pose this question: Is there ever a time when images of children on the internet or in film are exploitative i.e., merely for the sexual gratification of adults and is this practice totally acceptable? If you feel the answer is a resounding “no” with a follow-up emphatic "yes", then to continue this discussion with you is pointless. If however, you answer in the affirmative, I would proceed to ask you to define the line that separates exploitative from non-exploitative.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367
Macky wrote:
Remember, we are a country of over 300,000,000 people.
What I write here has nothing to do with the discussion in this present thread. What Macky wrote just reminded me of a story. At the beginning is Israel's statehood Weitzman was named as the first president, but he was soon disappointed to find that his office was that of a figure-head and all the power was in the hands of the Prime Minister. While on a state visit to the USA he was asked by President Truman about some problem or other. Truman characteristically asked: "Can't you stick your nose into this matter?" Weitzman replied bitterly: "The only thing I can stick my nose into is my handkerchief; everything else is Ben-Gurion's nose!" Truman was taken aback and said sternly, "Mr President, are you not aware that you are speaking to the President of a nation of 200 million people?" Weitzman replied: "Mr President, are you not aware that you are speaking to the President of a country of 2 million presidents?"
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Location: USA
Registered: September 2003
Messages: 327
The answer to all your questions is NO.
I don't argue that the United States' view on nudity is lame. I am not from the United States so even I find it a little unusual when people are shocked because they saw a penis or boob on tv. The human form is beautiful. No reason to panic when you see someone naked. I completely agree with your statement that "USA has weird views on morality, sex, nakedness and so much more."
I have seen and considered all the examples you have posted. I didn't see anything wrong with them. The nudity shown in your examples was within the context of the film. I think you are missing the point, too. The boys in the goats clip were not doing anything sexual, flirting, or nothing that would be considered perverse by a rational mind. However, i firmly believe, in the goat clip, the 'striptease' was NOT within the context of the film, which you said, was to show boys doing stupid things. Like Macky said "Why on earth would boys strip to their underwear to do bike jumps?" and even worse, allow themselves to be filmed. Who knows, maybe some boys do just that. They go out and ride bikes in their underware. Maybe i would need to see the rest of the film to understand the purpose of riding bikes in underware. Maybe they did it because it was fun. I really don't know, and really, it doesn't matter. For these reasons, i believe the film didn't fit the purpose you were showing it for. I share Macky's view that the film seemed exploitative.
Timmy, believe me when i say i do see your rationale. However, there is nothing wrong with expressing my point of view if i feel something is not right.
Forgive me if i have caused any trouble. NO reason to overreact. You don't have to close the forum down, ultimately, you can chose what stays and what goes.
[Updated on: Mon, 20 July 2009 05:22]
You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because you love them.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
No. The fuss was about the perception of an entirely different film being in some manner quasi-pornographic and exploitative. The other film has a totally different quality yet is also innocent, but prurient eyes see it differently.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
One of the stupid things is doubtless the removal of clothes. It is not a sexual film, it shows boys being boys. Perhaps they dare each other, I have no idea. But I see and saw nothing remotely sexually interesting in it.
I view the context of the goat film as "boys being goats, and boys being gods." The God part shows their immortality, in their heads. The goat shows the stupidity of boys in a group. Why do they remove clothing? I have no idea. Are underpants aesthetically pleasing? Well, not to me. But that is what the film is about. Boys being goats.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
The question you pose is rhetoric. The answer is so obvious that it has no need to be answered. You use it as a stratagem. Nonetheless I will answer your rhetorical stratagem.
When anyone does something overtly sexual, a thing which includes the flaunting of, not the simple exposure of, their or other people's genitals, then that is a sexual act which you may consider for regulation.
When a character on film flirts with the camera or another character, even if fully clothed, then that may be considered to be a covertly sexual act. Some such acts perhaps ought to be considered for regulation. The Peter Pan movie is extremely well done, but the child who plays Peter goes, in my view, way beyond anything suitable in a film made for an audience of children in his flirting.
You talk about bias. I am biased against bigotry. The puritan morality that the United States expresses as a nation is one of its many faults. It hides a large number of those faults behind "If you were a moral person, a decent person, you would agree with me" arguments. It has a "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" mentality, and it has a history of persecuting its own citizenry, a documented history, a history of which it was proud at the time. See the US Senator for Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957.
Your free country is even less free than ours. Within the past ten years you even had laws that prevented in at least one state a man and his wife having sex in private in anything other than the missionary position! You imposed your morals in the statute book in a manner so intrusive as to be beyond rational belief.
You still have Guantanamo Bay, an illegal prison camp for people held without a fair trial despite your new president who promised to sweep all away and has not done so "because it is too hard to do it". You rampage over the world like a tiger with your armed forces and your corrupt bankers and you cause global safety to decrease while allegedly fighting terrorism, and the baking systems of the world, arguably incompetently regulated, to crash because your countrymen invented the "securitised mortgage" and because your corporations are global the world is affected by the greed and stupidity of corrupt fat cats. And yes, our stupid bankers and our corrupt politicians followed you.
You come from the most dangerous nation in the world that causes havoc so much that any good that you do is no longer seen. One day you may achieve responsible global citizenship. I long for that day. Perhaps this president can start to achieve it.
I loathe and despise puritan mentalities and those who bully, and your nation displays both qualities in spades. If that is bias then I am biased, but I am biased against the qualities your nation, a nation which is really a loose federation of states, appears to espouse.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
So where do you stand on 'Du er ikke alene'? A mainstream release in a minority language, or on 'Voor een verloren soldaat"? Another mainstream release in a minority language. You find them om Youtube for yourselves.
Both of these are lawful films, freely circulated. The former has nudity and implied sex, the latter has no real nudity and simulated sex.
Are these paedophilia, "art films" (we all know what that means, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more), serious treatment of challenging topics, or what?
And what of the youngsters in them? Surely they were corrupted by the environment?
If there is more to these than pornography, and I believe there is far more to each of them than any hint of pornography, then how does the Goat clip differ?
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
Rhetoric. Cicero and me. Here, let me fill my mouth with pebbles and expound above the ocean's roar. You give me too much credit, Timmy.
"When anyone does something overtly sexual, a thing which includes the flaunting of, not the simple exposure of, their or other people's genitals, then that is a sexual act which you may consider for regulation."
I think that this is a pretty good definition of sexual exploitation. And I can see why you feel as you do, since you limit your definition to genitals. Our disagreement stems from the fact that I do not feel exploitation is limited to flaunting of genitals. You came to this conclusion yourself, when you pointed out the erotic nature of the Sumpter Peter Pan, although there was no genital flaunting there. Sumpter had an agent. He was a professional. He knew well that his image would be for public display, and he, through his agent, agreed to use that for the furtherance of his career. What I object to is somebody exploiting the innocence of an unsophisticated child to further his own economic wellbeing. I see that in the goats clip. To me, it is objectionable.
As to the sins of the USA, could it be that we learned them from England's history of riding roughshod over the entire globe and warring to open markets to its manufactured goods. Even today your country joins the USA in its ill conceived ventures in Iraq and Afganistan. I get enough self-righteous baloney in my own country. Please don't you start a UK chapter of the "moral majority" to point out the faults of others so as to obscure their own inadequacies from view.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
In Australia boys ride their bikes in nothing but shorts all the time. Riding a bike wearing only underpants is a little stranger, but I've seen it done.
I noticed Macky say something in the original post about it being staged because the boys weren't wearing helmets. That made me chuckle out loud. It's obviously not the opinion of someone that has recently been a teenager.
It's common, quite common, to ride without a helmet.
"Do I have to mum."
"That stupid bitch made me wear this."
"Fuck it, I'm leaving it here. I'm not gonna wear that."
Sound more like teenagers I'd know.
Riding topless? Well, again, it's not uncommon. Though I would probably never have done it the popular kids at school would have. They'd walk around topless on sports days, even in winter. But they'd never take a shower naked. Topless is more than fine, underwear is even fine. Penis= nono.
But that's my culture. The boys in the video obviously weren't Australian. They have their own culture and their own acceptable norms. If I knew the culture I'd be able to judge it more accurately.
I guess the Eastern European language probably coloured people's opinions. All exploitative child porn comes out of Eastern Europe after all ::-)
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: England, United Kingdom
Registered: September 2008
Messages: 33
That's easily done in many different mediums. Whatever you look for in the videos that you posted can be seen without the removal of any (or all) items of clothing, in various other movies or films.
"I love to see a woman with a sawn-off shotgun..."
Why would anyone look at a puppy? Or want to paint a nude?
There's artistic beauty in youth. And there is a purity in nudity that can't be captured by less revealing clothing. Nudity <> sex.
But regardless I see young boys naked whenever I open my latest department store catalogue and they are having a "kids clothes" sale.
Of course, the boys in timmy's first video were not nude. Nor was their topless state abnormal or somehow sexual. They could have been dressed in full BMX gear and it would have had the same impact. Only that would have been more abnormal from my experience.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: England, United Kingdom
Registered: September 2008
Messages: 33
I enjoyed riding my bike at that age, in fact I was never off the bloody thing. I can safely say Saben, I never rode my bike in my underwear or for that matter in 'full BMX gear'
"I love to see a woman with a sawn-off shotgun..."
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
When I had an office to cycle to I wore the cycle helmet, but, in the summer evenings, I often cycled home shirtless.
People are reading too much into attire. They need to look at the way the kids act in the clip, not their clothing. But the main point has long been trampled under the lynch mob.
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429
I am beginning to realize how much I have missed in my life. I enjoyed La Gloire and even the nude boy scenes were overall of minor effect. I don't know what else to say.
It's nothing to do with young boys. It's just that naked people are often beautiful and you can't see it anything like so well when they have clothes on.
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
