Ugh: I just watched The Magdalene Sisters. I've always considered myself to have a strong stomach for film (i'll give you partial credit for this, Dr McEwan, with Water Baby Water and Kissed) but this film REALLY did not sit well with me. I don't want to spend too much time on it, because I (while I would love write about this film) really don't think it sufficiently applies to my topic.

Sorry for the long delay in postings (spring break was a massive failure at a vacation in the dominician, landing me in the hospital with a parasite-- just got back to school yesterday, so i am a bit behind). But, spending time in a hospital with only spanish dubbed episodes of Save by the Bell, does leave one with time to think. I've been reading Lolita, which has shed some interesting light on the initial root of pedophelia. I dont know how I didn't think of this, but the fact the fact that Humbert Humbert seems to have his pedofelic urges rooted in a stunted pubecent sexual encounter may imply the pedophile's juvenile status. Does this further emasculate male pedophiles?

Also, I'm thinking of renting Mystic Pizza. Now, I know this hardly has the artistic merits of some of the other films I've been looking at, but I think that is what makes it useful. Additionally, its the only film that tells a pedophilic story from the perspective of the child. Maybe the mainstream-ness of the film could also shed some light on the cultural views of the erotic juvenile.

Ketchup!

Ok, so I have been continuing with my paper (just don't look at my last blog date to verify!). I don't know if this is at all useful but I've started reading Lolita (the novel) and I've been thinking a lot about the reconciliation between so-called 'innate' sexuality, and social constructions of sexuality.

I've added The Magdalene Sisters to my netflix queue so I'm looking forward to seeing that..

Not sure if this is at all applicable, but on the Daily Show, they did a feature with this guy who had something like a 13 inch long penis and they kept focusing on how there was nothing legitimate for him to do besides porn. This probably has no real effect on my paper but it did make me wonder about these 'sexual abnormalities' and how society feels the need to remove them from mainstream society. His penis makes him a freak- and the show satirically suggests that it must overtake his being. He cannot possibly have any other capacity for skill and is sectioned off as sexual anomaly. Of course, his sexual abnormality is not immediately visible, but once it is revealed, it is uncontainable (no pun intended). He is a sexual threat because he is pure sex. Similarly, perhaps pedophiles are in a similar position- once their incontainable sexuality is revealed, they are outed. Maybe it is the degree to which they are sexually 'sensitive' (as in turned on by the smallest things- both literally and figuratively- children). Maybe this is a stretch though..

"The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile" by Gunter Schmidt

This article discusses the various past and present discourses on pedophilia. Schmidt's argument is that the two main schools of thought, polarize and shift focus on the nature of adult/child sexual relationships (473). Some academics believe that the primary problem with pedophilia is it's denial of sexual self-determination (474); Schmidt argues that our current society is one of general sexual liberation, and that we do not condemn the majority of sexual acts we have in the past, because they operate between equal, consenting adults. It is the imbalance of power between man and child that causes moral outrage. However, pedophilic philosophy argues that children are naturally sexual beings, and are subverted by a culture which forbids them from embracing their sexuality (476). This statement has been supported by sexual scientist, Kinsey, but is extremely controversial; many scientists today argue that the biological and emotional perceptions of sexuality by children is different (476). Because of this, relations between man and child are uneven. Overall, the article concludes that sexual contact between man and child has high potential for trauma, although he admits that there are many cases of relations between men and children that are reportedly positive (476). Schmidt calls the pedophile's plight "tragic" (477) because they are born into a sexuality (not unlike homosexuality) which is fundamentally unsupported by moralists, humanitarians, and society at large. For this, Schmidt argues, pedophiles deserve respect for the burden they bear (477) .

This is quite a stirring article, for some of its postulates are quite controversial, but it is so well written and clarified, that I found myself almost understanding. There is a great deal of tragedy that seems to accompany pedophiles in film- they are both aware and unable to control their unacceptable desires. But for this, are we supposed to sympathize with these criminals? Does doing so let them off the hook? Absolve them? Maybe even admit to gazing at the eroticized child, as well?

"'Wake Up!': Narrative of Masculine Epiphany in Millennial Cinema" by Daniel Tripp

This article does not focus on American Beauty's sexualization of teens, but discusses the commidfication of the masculine identity. The protagonist, Lester Burnham, has an epiphany about his life- his masculinity. He attempts to free himself from his oppressive workplace and emasculating family by 'facing reality' and reach self-actualization (Tripp 182). What is concerning, is Lester's lack of self-control as a result of his attempt to reclaim his masculinity. He can do whatever he wants, yes (a privilege of his masculinity), but it leads him to indulge his sexual whims. There is empathy for Lester's state and quest, but I wonder if it is enough for justification of his desires. .? His search for masculinity overpowers his sexual deviance.

"The Thoughts in Your Head: The Pedofile as 'Other' in Sidney's Lumet's The Offence" by Adrian Schober

This article argues that the film The Offence exposes the societal need for pedophiles as a way to explain the image of the eroticized child in film (Schober 134). According to the article, the film unearths the dissonance between our perceptions of pedophiles, and our own sexual anxieties (139). By demonizing pedophiles we distance them from ourselves and are able to remain self-assured that our own sexualities are safe and normative. The film also blurs the line between the criminal and hero, passion and obsession, normalcy and insanity. How far is the distance between those who engage in McCarthy-esque pedophile hunting (the 'moral panic' other articles have touched on) and actual pedophilia?

For a film that progressively attempts to deal with pedophilia, it is surprisingly masochistic though (138).. it seems the trend in these types of films are reliant on feminist theory. However, in this film, the women are only represented in the domestic realm, and as vapid sexual beings (138). It's interesting that the film is so conservative in relation to women with men as the only ones who are conflicted about sexuality.

"Do Pedophiles Have a Weaker Identity Structure Compared with Nonsexual Offenders?" by Monique Tardif and Hubert Van Gijseghem

This article is scientific, but I felt it was important to have a firm grasp on the reality of the pedophile psychology in order to better be able to analyze their representation in film. A psychological study was conducted to examine 'body image limits' (Tardif and Gijseghem 7) and 'ego identity' (8). Overall, the study also confirmed that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal skills, dysfunctional relationships, and poor social functioning skills. Pedophiles also have more delicate egos and body images than nonsexual offenders (23).

One thing about the study I found particularly interesting is the fact that pedophiles who had abused males, were found to have weaker egos than nonsexual offenders or pedophiles who abused females. Pedophiles who had abused males were also shown to have a greater difficulty dealing with threatening situations; the combination of these two factors also correlated with higher level of childhood sexual abuse. In many ways, the study consistently implied that pedophiles who abuse males have much different (poor) psyches than those who abuse females or nonsexual offenders (21-23).

I wonder what it is that makes these pedophiles psychologically weaker. All of the subject in the study were male, so I wonder what about these men's masculinity was so underdeveloped that they felt the need to exert their power over the only type of male they saw as a fit subject. This is of course, my interpretation of the root of their desires, which is unconfirmed in this study. What is it about male victims that causes such a rift in the minds of their predators? Harking back to Lacan's mirror stages and the ideal self, I wonder if such criminals relate their self-image to the ideal image recognized in the mirror as a child, and still yearn for that precise persona and juvenile ideology..? The article does note that an established theory of pedophiles is the fact that pedophilia is rooted in childhood/adolescents.

"Lolita: Great Novel or Not, The Movie is a Pedophile's Fantasy" by Nancy Marsden

This article argues that the film Lolita, specifically the Adrian Lyne's remake, hides behind a blissful ignorance of it's original creation in the fifties. The article explains the film's marketing as a veiled attempt to elicit erotic thrill. By describing the film as "a journey to paradise lit by hell's flames," Showtime (who produced the film), it suggests that there is something pleasurable about Lolita. The film attempts to structure Lolita as a "woman trapped in a child's body, a 'nymphet'" (Marsden 1). Does this framing allow viewers to identify with the pedophilic protagonist? It seems as though the construction of Lolita allows for a safe, excusable erotic gaze. This film differs from more modern pedophile portrayals, by demonizing the child- not the pedophile. Is this film and it's marketing really an attempt to appeal to some kind of perverse fascination with juvenile sexuality?

So, I accidentally read a pro-paedophilia journal article. Masked as a radically liberal argument, Abigal Bray seems to have essentially arguing that by de-criminalizing and removing the taboo of the sexualized child, we are reaching a more Utopian, intellectually liberated society. She says that child sexual abuse (csa) is accompanied by 'moral panic' that is closed off to artistic progression. She seems to argue against, and generally ignore, the victimization of child sexual abuse. Personally, as a very liberal person, opposed to general censorship, etc. I still found this argument abhorrent, ignorant, and pretentious. There is a line, period, that should not be crossed. Art should not be at the expense of other's safety. Allowing the sexualized child to be a prevalent image in society opens the door for so many other horrific things (snuff films, increased tolerance of crimes). Allowing children to engage in sex with adults should not be seen as artistically progressive. I had a hard time reading this (I basically could not finish it) and it made me quite angry. People who are against the sexualization of children in media are not dim wighted, puritanistic, conservatives. Unfortunately, the use of this article for my paper is not at all valid- and I've just spent the last 45 minutes angrily highlighting this disgusting propaganda.

Starting out..

I'm thinking about writing my paper on masculinity of pedophiles in current film; I've been screening a bunch of films that deal with the topic (The Woodsman, Little Children, Lolita, American Beauty, Hard Candy) doing some preliminary research- just trying to get a sense of what is out there, which is not much. There are many articles dealing with Kevin Spacey's character in American Beauty but the topic seems generally avoided by scholars. Based on all the films I've been watching (which I admit, my roommate is getting a little concerned that every time we have some down time, I suggest watching a pedophile movie), I'm noticing several overlapping trends; The men are often desexualized. Through their sexual crimes, they have been castrated by society. There is constantly an assumption of the demonetization of sexual predators juxtaposed with an attempt to counter it and understand these men, almost feel empathetic for their struggle with immorality. There is also the positioning of pedophiles as 'others', somehow detached from humanity- a breed of some estranged man-child. The gazing at and with these predators, also poses a problematic position for for viewers. We are inclined to hate them, yes, but the films often make us sympathize. After that, we are subject to their gaze on others, and thus engage in their erotic gaze at children. Working with Mulvey's theory, I want to further explore this gaze, and maybe explore castration anxieties (which come to fruition in several of these films).