Paedophile subtext?


Now dont freak out - but I work in child protection and one of the main things we look out for in a paedophile is when adults begin to groom children. What this means is that the adult is seeking ways of: getting the child alone, gaining their trust, giving them gifts that may not be appropriate, touching children so as to test the boundaries of their friendship, developing a culture of secrecy or giving them tasks to do that they are not allowed to tell others about. All this happens in the process of 'seducing' them.

Now, does anyone else see any similarities between the above list and the relationship in this film between Long John Silver and Jim? You can pretty much check every box one way or another - so I was a bit creeped out between their relationship actually. Granted, it was more complex than that, but still a little weird.

Did anyone else pick up on it or have I just been working with the wrong sorts of people for too long?

reply

The OP's screen name 'Kneecapboy'? LOL.....sounds awfully Pedo to me.

reply

What a disturbing, and baseless, claim and/or comment to make. Curious... now exactly WHY and HOW did you think up such a thing? Hmmm....

reply

[deleted]

You have "paedophilia" (just for the record, the correct spelling is p-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-i-a) on the brain!

reply

Pedophilia is the American spelling of the word paedophilia, which is a Greek word meaning Child Love. The British use the Greek spelling.

Ped is Greek for foot (as in pedometer), therefore the American spelling translates into English as Foot Love.

Paedos translates into English as Children. Therefore, when all the anti-paedophiles on the Internet scream 'Kill all the paedos', they are actually saying 'Kill all the children' and if they're American and screaming 'Kill all the pedos', they're actually screaming 'Kill all the feet'.

So, why do the media keep using the Greek word paedophile instead of its English translation childlove? Well, obviously because it sounds more scarey, like 'Frankenstein' and scarey headlines sell papers.

reply

When I was a kid I used to fantasize all the time about being the only boy on a pirate ship, with many of the men half-dressed, some even tied up or in manacles.

I never understood what it all meant...until I finally "grew up."

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

Maybe you were just into bondage at an early age.

reply

There was nothing at the time that required this predatory behavior: Powder Monkeys - young boys that were used to haul powder for the guns through small tunnels built into the ships - were frequently abused at will by the sailors. There was no need to "groom" them, as they were taken as seen fit.

So, you should really stop applying modern predatory practices in an historical context. It's silly and incorrect.

..Joe

reply

This is historically correct, although for some reason, the film industry has always fought shy of showing boy powder monkeys in period naval dramas. There were none shown during the battle scenes in either "Captain Horatio Hornblower", or in "H.M.S. Defiant", for example.

People these days tend to either be unaware or unable to remember that in the UK even forty years ago in 1973, a man who played about sexually with, say, an eleven years old boy, would, if he were charged with indecent behaviour and taken to court and either pleaded guilty or was found guilty, would be fined and have to pay court costs and would not be sent to prison. This was because such activities between an adult and a child were then deemed to be a misdemeanor like stealing a bar of chocolate from a shop and not a felony, which carried a potential prison sentence. I recall a case published in my local paper in the early 1970s of a bread delivery van driver who had two boys, aged 11 and 12, helping him out on his round and he messed about with them sexually in a mutual activity that was later described in court as "horseplay in the back of the van" between the two boys and the man. He was fined something like £30 ($45). People these days also tend to be unaware that the laws regarding such activities were not as draconian back then as they are today. The case I referred to was relegated to something like the bottom of page 8 in the paper at the time. These days, it would be front page news.

So what we have here is the fact that 40 years ago, such activity was not seen as seriously as it is today and no doubt it was seen even less seriously 100 years ago. So think how much less seriously it would have been 250 years ago.

reply

Good Grief! Disney will have to take another look at this film and ban it from American markets as it has done, with the blessing of the late Roger Ebert, "Song of the South" or edit out entire scenes as it has with the smoking ones, again Roger's blessing, in "Melody Time".


After all Disney is deep in the PC tanks. It removed a whole segment "The Martins vs the Coy's" with music provided by the King's Men from "Make Mine Music" due to "graphic gunplay not suitable for children".

Once again Disney had the censorious and Disney employee Roger's blessings.

Don't you just love the way hypocritical Disney erases its past and expurgates its own films to cater to the PC crowd, who can find something dirty or objectionable in every film Disney ever made?

After all what were those7 Dwarfs really doing with Snow White?

It is a disgrace for those of us who love films as they were meant to be seen have to endure Disney's abject PC Hypocrisy concerning its own movies.

Now that the issue of sexual abuse has been brought up in another Disney classic, Disney should withdraw it from public showing, locked away in a vault and never let it be seen again as it has with SOTS. American audience must be treated like children by the Great Mouse House as the company thinks we are too stupid to see their films in their original manifestations.

reply

Now, THAT'S how trolling should be done!

Well written, well researched, an immersive approach, restraint, the author's skillful use of self doubt to invoke trust.

Great stuff.

reply