even though she prefers polite middle aged men not mean boys.
-
whitespirit26 — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 07:44 AM)
You people are really sick. She didn't do that bc she's not a complete and sick monster. That would make her a nasty pedophile and predator, instead of the fascinating and ultimately sympathetic character she was.
-
Reva_C — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 08:53 AM)
This was just a film right? A horror esque film at that? A genre where horrific things happen in horror films? This conversation makes it sound like someone is suggesting it was a fly on the wall recording of real life and this stuff really happened and the people are real. LOL
And no, you're not a troll, English. I don't agree with all that you've said, but I get the point behind the line of questioning. Because at that point in the film, you still think she's a kidand you know something's off, that she's mentally too old for her age, but you can't quite place it.
And in the original script, she has scissors that she puts to his eye, then down between his legs, threatening to cut it off if he speaks (with words that hint to a sexual connotation with the 'before you even know what it's for' line, and while he's in a bed), and then it clearly says in the script that she takes a moment to 'savour his fear', so she's taking pleasure out of the whole thing. That's not as clear in the film, it's clearer in the script.
So there are hints of a sexual undertone in the scene that remains firmly unspoken (and no, this is not sick, this is a well known horror writing trick if you study the craft of writing and film making, especially in the horror genreif you trick the human brain into thinking into thinking on a sexual line about something, (even if for a fleeting second or unconsciously without you even realising that what you're seeing has a sexual undertone), when that is alongside something horrific (sometimes it's blood and gore or killing, in this case it's a teenager being terrified by a knife) then it makes the scene even more disturbing to the viewer (or reader in a book). Because they are two things that shouldn't go together, so we have a bigger reaction of repulsion to it. And it's even more so when it's subtle, because you can't put your finger on why, you don't realise there's a sexual undertone, so you don't realise that's why it's disturbing because it's alongside something horrificit's so subtle you can't put your finger on it, you just know the scene is really flipping disturbing. It's actually very very clever and something that good horror writers use with skill in films and books and have done for decades.
So it's a very pertinent question, but I completely disagree with the idea of there being a rape between them. It would have been far too much and would have made me feel thoroughly sick.
So yeah, I don't agree with the original post question, but I can see why it was thought of by someone. And seeing as there's an actual sense behind the question, that means, English, you're not a troll, cos you weren't just replying out of nowhere for the sake of winding people up, there was an actual sense behind it. -
whitespirit26 — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 10:18 AM)
Ok, did you see his whole post? You said this, Saxon:
"Debatable whether a sexual exploration between them would be in any immoral anyway, if done lovingly (don't think Daniel would have objected). In fact the whole situation had potential for a very liberated and loving family unit, if she'd only had the equilibrium to grasp it!"
This isn't some subtle thing about how maybe there's sexuality involved, you blatantly just said that sex between them might be just fine if he consented, and went on to say it might have been a very cool "liberated" family unit, allowing such sexual filth. You're a sick freak. -
jbaker1-2 — 2 years ago(July 29, 2023 09:59 PM)
Why don't you go change into your fuzzy pink onesie, pop a Xanax or two and curl up on the couch with a Lifetime movie and a tall, refreshing glass of go **** yourself?
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
Freddyfan951 — 10 years ago(March 23, 2016 11:23 PM)
Unfortunately, many people who were sexually abused as children have the risk of ending up doing the same to others. It's called 'identification with the oppressor/ abuser/or aggressor. So her doing the same to someone else might not be out of the question. But I almost think that if Esther were to have done such a thing, the target she would take advantage of would be Max.
-
whitespirit26 — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 07:53 PM)
Um, no; Esther was abused by a man, so if she had been a total monster like her worthless father, she prolly would have hurt Daniel. But she wasn't, so she didn't, and the number of abused people who further become pedos is lower than people used to think.