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

[deleted]

Usually a pedophile will go after younger children. Jim was too old to be in that age range that a pedophile would seek to prey on or maybe he was just borderline, but generally pedophiles go after younger children.

reply

I have read that as a general rule when boys and/or young men were together and isolated from outside contacts some of them tended to get sexually frustrated and interested in some of their comrades.

It is also true that when people of the same age and gender are put together they find anyone who is exceptional or outside their group to be more interesting that most members of their group.

I remember that when I was in college surrounded by young men and women my own age and by a relatively few older persons, I once saw a family with children visiting the campus and thought how refreshing it was to see the first children I had seen in months.

I expect that one or a few boys among many men would tend to be considered somewhat special members of the group. And some of the men might come to consider them the next best thing to women or girls and start to lust for them.

Some people speculate whether one of the main purposes of cabin boys was to be sex slaves.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=5f8c2b4273534627a 44cb43983608c6a&t=469448

And I have read somewhere that the "custom of the sea" was when the crew was starving to death to kill and eat the youngest and "tenderest" crew members first. Thus hiring young cabin boys could be considered to be providing weaker and more defenseless potential food items in case of famine. Yuck!

So it seems possible that Robert Louis Stevenson might have imagined that Sliver's relationship with Jim might have had a component of sexual desire, or that some movie and tv versions of the story might imply that Silver had some degree of sexual desire for Jim.

On one of these boards I read that Jackie Cooper's long hair style in the 1934 version might be intended to suggest that Silver was sexually attracted to Jim. I have also read that in those days child actors grew their hair long between roles so that it could be cut to the desired length for their next roles. So I believe that Cooper's hairstyle in that film was what the producer, director, etc. desired. But I don't know if that was supposed to be an 18th century boy's hairstyle or to suggest that Sliver felt any lust for Jim.

(most tough and macho American Indian warriors wore their hair so long that they would probably consider even the longest haired actor we have seen in any movie to be short haired.)

The rules on some pirate ships forbid having any boys aboard, allegedly for the same reason that women were forbidden to be aboard.



reply

Generally speaking, the Greek word 'paedophile', meaning 'child lover' in English, refers to someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children...that is those aged 12 years and younger. As Bobby Driscoll was 12 years old when the film was shot in the summer of 1949 and was playing someone who was obviously 12, it's conceiveable that a child lover would be attracted to him. However, the word has been so totally misused in the past 30 years or so that anyone who fancies a 17 year old is described as a paedophile when in fact someone attracted to teenagers is actually an ebephile. A 17 year old is hardly a child, more of a young adult.

reply

That seems to be a thing these days: what was, in the old days, considered simply being nice to kids, is today considered "grooming". The difference between the old days and today is that mothers used to say, "what do we say to the nice man?", but today will say, "get away from him you PERVERT!"

reply

That's because most people are, unfortunately, very easily led by what they read in the papers and hear and see on the news. For the past 30 years, the media have been busily convincing a gullible public that all men are out to do kids harm and the hysteria has now reached such a stage that no man is given the benefit of the doubt. A far cry from what it was like in my childhood over sixty years ago, when us children mixed freely with men and no harm came to us.

reply

Oh good grief! Does EVERYTHING have to be something sinister??? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.





Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

reply

Oh good grief! Does EVERYTHING have to be something sinister??? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.





Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

reply