[Paracelsus]

Paedo-friendly film incoming: Una, starring Ben Mendelhson and Rooney Mara, is due out soon. It is an indie film, but since it's getting positive reviews from film critics you can bet it's been given the leftie seal of approval.

The basic premise of the film (based on the play Blackbird and adapted for the screen by the director) is that a sexual abuse victim (female) finds her abuser (male) about fifteen years after the abuse was over and done, and proceeds to confront him about what happened.

Rather than the more realistic and likely occurrence of the victim taking a gun and putting a bullet in her abuser's head, it then proceeds to suggest that "lol, things are more complex than they seem" and implies the girl (the character being aged 13 at the time) was mature and manipulative and the man was an unmasculine baby.

Don't jump to sympathy for that character or conclude I am wrong-footing this example. Those characterisations were selected specifically to make it easier for you, a Western male in an demasculated culture, to feel sympathy for the male in the film. It is bait for a slippery slope; if you are open to the idea that a 13 year old can realistically manipulate a fortysomething man, then you are already lost and have missed the very point - which is that we have a society in which a man can remain infantilised well into middle age.

Excusing paedophiles' conduct as "oversimplifying" the issue is as old as Nabokov. And one might note this: Nabokov still held that Humbert Humbert was a swine. He did not really suggest that Lolita was other than a child with a child's maturity.

Una goes the other way. They try to humanise the paedophile by (a) making him a childish man and (b) making an adult of the child he abused. This is a very, very dangerous thing to do, because like it or not, modern TV tells you what and how to want.

It is telling that abuse victims' groups haven't spoken out in protest or haven't been permitted to speak out about this sick fantasy. I mean, seriously. One of the central points of this show is the very possibility that the victim might have enjoyed the sex. Let's say instead that this film involved an adult rape victim confronting her rapist about 15 years down the line. The very suggestion that the rape victim enjoyed it would have been enough for mass picketing of theatres by bluehairs demanding the film not be shown.

The filmmakers advance the argument via a mix of postmodernism and gay-style "SOCIETY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND MEEEEEE, SOCIETY IS AT FAULT" advocacy. As an example, take a look at parts of one leftie's review of the play on which the movie was based:

http://soapbox-ems.weebly.com/blackbird-...-long.html

Quote:

Ray’s ability to disqualify himself from the “pedophile label” gives him the means to salvage his self-image and ignore the damage he has done to Una. He feels a legitimate emotional connection to Una that the audience and society, in their eagerness to cast quick, easy judgments, refuse to account for. Consequently, he takes on the same approach himself. Ray is able to delude himself into thinking that his feelings for Una are love and not merely an unnatural manifestation of unrequited lust and loneliness. Similarly, hindered as they are with the caricature of a pedophile, Ray and Una’s neighbors are unable to see the warning signs in the two characters’ interactions. They cannot fathom that the seemingly harmless man who is in a relationship with an adult woman is in fact a pedophile.

When it does come out that Ray has been molesting Una, society’s response, the response that the audience condones, does as much if not more damage to the latter than any sexual act that transpired. When Ray and Una recall the time they had sex in a hotel room, they both remember it as a positive experience. This is not to say that their relationship was healthy; it is, after all, possible to enjoy something that is bad for you. However, the word “abuse,” which characters and society use to label the encounter and Una encourages Ray to adopt on page 40, is woefully inadequate to describe what has occurred. In fact, the treatment that Una receives at the hands of society in the aftermath of the experience is far more akin to abuse than the experience itself, at least from her perspective:

“They drugged me. Held me down and injected me. Opened my legs and took- took out your come. Evidence. They asked me what you’d done to me. Then told me what you’d done to me when I wouldn’t. You were only after one thing. That’s why you disappeared. You’d gotten what you’d wanted” (Harrower 59).

When Una refers to “they,” she is talking about the doctors in particular and society in general, the so-called civilized, upstanding people that do not have sex with children. On the contrary, the treatment Una describes at the hands of society is monstrous and harmful on many levels. Physically, she is subjected to a horrifying ordeal. She is “injected” like an animal and her legs are forced open in a search for “evidence.” Una’s treatment at the hands of society sounds much more like abuse, in its forceful violation of her body and her dignity, than does her consensual and pleasurable sexual encounter with Ray, however sick and misguided it was.

If there's anything that's sick and misguided, it's this fucking analysis of child sexual abuse. Don't teal deer this, go back through those three paragraphs and have a think about the sort of person who would think that this is either a legitimate point of view or that this treatment of paedophilia is acceptable or helpful.

This approach is designed to discourage girls or boys from reporting their sexual abuse - suggesting that the process of investigating is actually worse than the abuse itself. This is a ludicrous proposition that NAMBLA would be applauding from their basements. And it is a proposition that is coming to a theatre near you ... perhaps unsurprisingly in the UK first, where hundreds of girls have been culturally enriched by "complicated" foreign paedophiles.

Again, it is narcissism. It excuses the paedophile (I'm not a bad person, I just do bad things now and then). It screams that the problem is society, not you. This sort of shit is standard for "edgy", "provocative" theatre, and after pissing on the very idea that paedophilia is bad for you, they try to hide behind the idea "Oh, I'm just asking you to think deeper about this". Continuing our reviwer's lunacy for a moment:

Quote:

Towards the end of the play, Una speaks for the audience: “I don’t know what to believe… there’s so much to choose from” (Harrower 69). Una’s statement highlights the overall point of “Blackbird,” which is to force the audience to question assumptions they have about pedophiles and the detrimental effect these assumptions have on victims of pedophilia, and even the perpetrators themselves. The audience members stand in for society as a whole in that they bring certain misconceptions and oversimplifications into the theater that causes them to judge the characters in a certain way. Harrower uses the dramatic interplay between Ray and Una to encourage the audience to think more deeply about an issue that usually provokes knee-jerk reactions. He does not intend to change audience members’ minds about pedophilia, but rather he seeks to open them up to considering the emotional complexities, contradictions and power dynamics that underlie a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.

"I don't want to change your mind about paedophilia, I just want you to think with more complexity about it." Might as well say "I just want to see how just the tip feels." This continuing bullshit that simplicity is wrongthought is a perverted outgrowth of postmodernism. It's a leftie attempt at out-grouping: "Oh, you think paedophilia is a black-and-white thing? Well you're just not smart enough to think about it deeply!"

This sort of shit will continue. This is obviously the new approach: sexualise the child and infantilise the perpetrator. And cloak it under postmodernism and denial of morality. Exhibit one is the actress selection. This is how they make a 13 year old look in a fucking story about paedophiles:



This image is not accidental, it's not a trick of the light, they want children to look like this to anyone watching the film.

And the adult victim is no alcoholic or drug-addicted wreck, as is often the case, either:



Doesn't look like she suffered a life-altering event in her early teens at all, does she? Guess she came out of that without a single physical drawback at all!

I know this is a rant, but nothing fires me up quite like this issue. If 4/pol had any organisation they would be phoning bomb threats on UK theatres that wanted to show this film, this shit is a root cause for a massive proportion of the misery of drug addictions and crime in the West. This film should have a backlash like Cassie Jaye unjustly got for The Red Pill.