MovieChat Forums > À ma soeur ! (2001) Discussion > How the hell is Fat Girl not child porn...

How the hell is Fat Girl not child pornography?

posted 19 years ago by spikesprodigy
37 replies | jump to latest

I just saw Fat Girl last night. I have one question-How the hell is this not child pornography? What exactly is the purpose of seeing a 12 year old girls breasts? Or for that matter, a 15 year old girl being anally raped while her sister watches across the room?

Don't get me wrong. I actually enjoyed the premise of the film dealing with a love/hate relationship between two sisters and how physical appearance and the desire to be loved can distort a person's rationalality. However, some things are just better left to the imagination.

In my opinion, Fat Girl is simply child pornography in disguise. I have no doubt that Breillat included the gratuitously graphic sex scenes in order to sexually arouse members of the audience.

As sad as this sounds, I am certain Fat Girl was a guilt-free means for thousands of pedophiles looking to pleasure themselves without the risk of prosecution.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Rape isn't act of sex. It is an act of violence. Check law, check medicine. It is all about power and humiliation.

Therefore, if you presume someone will be aroused by rape, you say that it is violence that gives him this feeling (I have Alex from Clockwork Orange in mind from the first moment I read your post). So this person will be even more aroused by watching James Bond, not to mention Stallone - Segal - Lundgren - vanDamme movies. And life coverage of ultimate fight would provoke them multiple orgasms.

I have no doubt that these persons would surely, for their guilt pleasures, use movies like Schindler's list, Empire of the Sun, Papillon, Flesh and Blood etc. So we should consider prosecuting people who made or watched these movies.

And a person who is aroused by any kind of violence wouln't be patient enough to watch first ten minutes, let alone one and half hour of Fat Girl.

Finally, watch other Breillat's movies. I'm suggesting "Une vraie jeune file" ("A Really Young Girl"). This young girl is a bit older than Anais in Fat Girl, but this movie has significantly more nudity. And if you get aroused by scenes like worms crawling over girl's genitals, let me know. When I find a person who finds it sexually stimulating, I'll have to reconsider my attitude to Breillat. Until then, I'll find these movies a well done presentation of how disturbing period of life adolescence can be.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mooji 17 years ago

I never considered this pornography. In my opinion porn is designed to titillate and arouse. If it is artistic or makes a statement, then that is an addition and not part of it's function.
I don't think this film glorified violence or promoted children as sexual objects .
I think (ands please don't jump down my throat) that in general, Europeans tend to be more accepting of things like this as a statement, and not as something overtly sexual.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I think (ands please don't jump down my throat) that in general, Europeans tend to be more accepting of things like this as a statement, and not as something overtly sexual

.

Nobody would do it because I think we all agree.

Europeans are proud because this is true.

Americans are scandalized because this is true.

So, as a conclusion: your throat will remain unhurt.

reply

[–] mooji 17 years ago

lol - never thought of it that way before!

reply

[–] bmack-3 17 years ago

I'm just gunna say this, the movie CAN be arousing if you are also 15 and watching

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

If you are a zebra or a hippopotamus some National Geographic programs can be arousing too. But that doesn't mean it was the moviemaker's intention.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] satan-stole-the-muffins 14 years ago

This is definitely not Child Pornography but, to be honest, I think that they may have crossed a line when Anais' breasts were shown during the rape, more because it must have been distressing for the actress to film a rape scene, let alone be nude at the same time. As a teenager myself, I would have found it difficult to appear nude on camera particularly in such a horrific scene. But overall, most of the nudity did have a purpose and is never shown in a directly sexual way, and its an excellent film.

I like pigs. Dogs look up to you, cats down on you. Pigs treat you as equals.

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 13 years ago

Some good points made here. The film is not child pornography. People are getting overly obsessed with these things.

It was a brave film, a difficult film and it made for uncomfortable watching at times. But for an exploration of female adolescence, it would have been weird not to show nudity. It's perfectly normal.
As for the 13yo girl's breasts ... well, I think the first scene (in the bathroom), it was kind of necessary because it showed her dealing with her own sexuality - the shot in the rape scene wasn't strictly necessary but it made the scene even more harrowing for me (although that sounds strange - it's a depiction of child rape, how can it be worse).

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nu_riot 13 years ago

"How the hell is Fat Girl not child pornography?" Because there was nothing pornographic in it. If you perceived the images presented to us in this film as sexually arousing then the problem lies with you.

It's interesting that you say "However, some things are just better left to the imagination" because both times Elena and Fernando have sex the camera does cut away.

---

reply

[–] Spellbinder888 12 years ago

Is the OP joking??

Depicting a teenager's body and sex/violence that happens to teenagers every moment of every day, is not pornography. Teenage girls are the most likely to be raped of any age group. Do you think ignoring it and pretending Mean Girls as an accurate depiction of adolescence is helpful?

I am a woman in my late 20s. I work in the law and have faced men who are paedophiles. If you think this is the type of material that gets them off then I pity your naive view of the world. Imagine, if you dare, thousands of images and thousands of hours of the most sick, depraved, inhumane sexual torture of very young children and you're half way to glimpsing the reality of the matter.

You say some things are better left to the imagination yet you clearly never exercise yours. By denying sexual violence happens, you disbelieve the people who are victims of it.

Do you want to do that, truly?

reply

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

Wow, that's disturbing. I'm the exact opposite. I have never seen child pornography. I've seen a lot of adult pornography though and this just isn't it. You see an actress who was actually 20 at the time having simulated sex, which is not shown to be especially appealing. Isn't the point of porn supposed to be to GLORIFY sex?

There is a brief but graphic rape scene involving the chubby younger girl, but it's only "erotic" if you're some kind of sick creep to begin with. Besides, if it was porn that scene would be ten minutes long, not ten seconds. I'm not crazy about the shock ending, but it's stupid to call this pornography.

reply

1
2