Just wondering, I know this was a groundbreaker of a movie in many respects. Did any movie before this have any references to pedophilia? Maybe some European or underground movie?
shareThe Mark (1961) portrays a child molester after his release from prison. Stuart Whitman was Oscar-nominated for this role.
shareTechnically he’s a hebephile.
shareOne highly provocative question to satisfy the morbid curiosity - do we consider pedophilia or even any sexual contact with the underage, not just legally but also morally, to be as bad as if not worse than the sexual violation of adults, of any kind, even when say for instance no physical force was used or threat of death, but there was still a lack of consent from the victim, even if in the former case, even though we are told that minors cannot "consent", the minor, like in Lolita, may agree to it?
And if the answer to that question is either yes or no, then how come, for instance, on these types of boards, there is generally LESS outrage here than in the latter case, and besides some particularly cruel examples as such, we don't have for instance "Pedophilia and revenge"-themed genre movies? Is there actual if any difference, at least morally?
How come the subject of pedophilia even from many people who are HIGHLY against it and find it repellant and also agree with the law on these message boards tends to invite thoughtful and intelligent discussions whereas the issue of sexual violence against adults often inspires outrage, conflicts and anger on a deeply personal level and also for the latter case, there is more welcoming for films that feature revenge scenarios?
Thank you for the post, as this was certainly an interesting question.
I would contend the reason Lolita created such division was because it came at a time when Christianity still maintained a relatively considerable level of relevancy. Within the Christian framework, childhood is intrinsically viewed as epitomizing a principal Christian value—innocence. In this context, innocence can be viewed as being the most proximate to the original state of man prior to the introduction of sin. With this in mind, we see that any injustice imposed on the child serves as an indirect affront on God himself, for the child is viewed as personifying blessed ethereal qualities.
The spectrum of moral outrage is given slightly more clarity when taken within the context of Christianity as a Western meta-narrative. Even though the novel which the film was based on was written by a Russian, the Christian element still remains, as Nabokov was Orthodox.
Still, if we are to maintain a contemporary secular worldview, the reason sexual violation of children is considered more egregious than an adult's (not to detract from the latter's injustice) is because of their physical and mental defenselessness.
There would seem to be far less films showcasing childhood sexual abuse than adult sexual abuse. The increase in outrage on behalf of the latter is less a case of acceptance of the former but more a matter of saturation. In other words, there are far more movies that have adult sexual violation than childhood sexual violation, so naturally there are more threads condemning those acts which affect the adult.
Revenge films are essentially appeals to self-efficacy. They are a Western ideal that has bled into Eastern culture. They are personal agency and the internal locus of control epitomized, highlighting the triumph of the individual over chance and circumstance. To extract revenge from your predator reifies this maxim, but to seek revenge on behalf of someone else is less individualistic and aligns more with collectivism.