You missed all the clues, then.
There was a scene where he gave a little girl her doll back. The girl must have been around 6-7. There was another scene where Kenny was standing transfixed by a child's drawing. And, well, when his mother called saying that he was looking at kids, that would not have made sense if she meant teenagers, since he was still a teenager himself.
There were also several scenes that showed that he was completely disconnected from people around his age. Like that girl at work sort of seemed interested, but he could never grunt more than a word or two to her at a time.
I'll probably catch more clues if I re-watch the episode now, already knowing what's what.
Anyway, to answer your initial question, pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children - I am not confusing or misusing any terms here.
Not only have I never heard that stated by anyone other than you
You must have not read this board either, then, what can I say...
This was all mentioned in numerous discussions.
At the end of the episode the viewer is supposed to understand exactly why Kenny was willing to go as far as to rob a bank and kill someone (or kill himself, as he at one point tried) to stop that video from getting out. The final scene removed all doubt.
reply
share
jamcmulliniv
8 years ago
Those are pretty weak clues.
Anyone could give a child their doll, anyone could stand transfixed at a child's drawing. There are many reasons they could have chosen to show those things. Child pornography is a major part of the theme - putting the character is a seemingly heart warming scene with a child and then juxtaposing that with the realization he is a pedophile is meant to be alarming, but doesn't mean anything more in itself. Nowhere was a sexual connection ever made between an under 10 child and the main character. A 17 year old is technically a child wher I live. You are either a child or an adult. I know of no in between. People refer to teenagers as children or kids all of the time, especially as you get older.
If the mom said 'little kids' or specified an age - or if he gave an age when asked by the guy in the field we would have known. As is we can only guess. Sometimes things just aren't clear, that's how life is. I understand the need to find something concrete but I don't think you are going to find it. When they had easy, obvious times to give specifics they chose not to. Just like me you are going to have to speculate.
reply
share
exatera
8 years ago
Yeah, about that... Spoon feeding material to the viewer in minute detail does not make for good art, especially when dealing with such repugnant subject matter. The viewer is supposed to infer. Too bad you seem unable to.
And no, even before anything was explained for sure it struck me as strange in that very moment that a teenager his age would be that kind and friendly to some random little girl. Most people, especially male, would simply not be interested enough. At the most they would have handed the mother or the daughter the doll, or alerted their attention to the fact that they left it behind, but they wouldn't have tried to make a "moment" out of it.
And please, kids' drawings are garbage to anyone but their parents. The only exception would be some rare case when the child is a born artist.
Oh, and in the episode Kenny is 19.
reply
share
jamcmulliniv
8 years ago
You really don't like being wrong, do you. The age was never stated - you thought it was but it wasn't. I would just move on. You aren't going to be able to explain it any better than giving theories. Unless the director comes out and clarifies it you can only grasp at ideas that support your theory, like everyone else.
You have theories that make sense to you (child's art is garbage? come on now) and that's fine - I have theories too. We all do, hence why when you come to discussions on this episode people have wildly different views on the main character (just look around this post). You want your version to be right and that's human, but in this case it's just that.. a version.
reply
share
exatera
8 years ago
It has nothing to do with me being wrong at all - you just can't seem to realize that when EVERYONE watching understood the episode, but you didn't, it's a problem, and it's not mine.
Please go argue with someone else, this discussion is not interesting to me. It's like you are being purposely obtuse.
reply
share
jamcmulliniv
8 years ago
Everyone? By my estimation after looking over threads on the forums - you are in the minority. Not many people were certain the child(ren) was under 10. It is not a common opinion on the boards. That's not opinion - go and check yourself. I can count heads if you like.
Never was the child's age stated. You cant change that fact either.
You lost. Move on. Be more careful before jumping to conclusions. Over the years I have become a pretty careful person with my opinions but I mess up too on the internet. I certainly never admit when I am wrong but after the fact I make a mental note to be more careful next time I type 'you are wrong' to someone.
To be clear - I am not saying your opinion is incorrect - I am merely stating that it is not fact, which you claimed it was. I definitely have a very different artistic interpretation of the episode but that's completely subjective and would not try to proselytize you with it. We are only human after all.
edit: Sorry for the multiple posts there
And lastly I certainly hope people do not think I am a pedophile because I help a child up if they fall really badly and no else is near in the playground because I am a man. I am a stay at home dad with three little ones and worrying that I can't do normal things that moms do because I am giving off a pedo vibe is really discomforting. I hope you don't feel that way and if you do - that you are in the minority.
reply
share
exatera
8 years ago
You remind me of this one person who after watching the movie Shame kept asking me, "But why do you think there was incest? But how do you know? But what was it in the movie that indicated that?"
Like I said, not interested.
reply
share
Badass_123
8 years ago
They made a point to show him running after a parent and her child to give them back some drawing they left behind, in the beginning of the episode. That made him look like a nice guy. Then at the end you find out he was looking at pictures of underage children. That was supposed to make you reinterpret the earlier scene I just mentioned. Just like how the "twist" in the movie Sixth Sense made you reinterpret all the previous scenes in the movie, like when Bruce Willis was having dinner with his wife in that restaurant, and she seemed to be giving him the cold shoulder. I think it's pretty clear he was attracted to children under 10.
reply
share
laurendorward-990-190608
8 years ago
Exatara isn't wrong though. You are. It's basically spelled out for you and is the whole crux of the storyline. Sorry you completely missed it but it's true.
The whole point is each character did something sinful. Like adultery or racism and the punishment fit the crime. Now, why would the hackers deem a little tug to be worse than these things? Answer he was looking at young kids. Not only is it patently obvious from this but we also get foreshadowing not once but several times throughout the film.
reply
share
Hater_Is_Here
8 years ago
I agree, Exatara won this debate hands down. jamcmulliniv came off extremely naive and shameless. He knows he is wrong though. We all know it.
reply
share
ChillinVillain123
8 years ago
Those clues were given in the episode to make sense of the ending. If we were to randomly find out he was a pedophile, with little to no evidence, the story wouldn't make sense. Why else would the director have used those scenes?
reply
share