This message has been deleted.

Don't forget, Neil had been exposed to inappropriate sexual situations before his coach raped him such as seeing his mother give blowjobs to her boyfriend in the front yard, for example. Being exposed to that sort of thing so early on no doubt also affected him later on and led to him being very sexualized at a much earlier age than the average kid, so it's not hard for me to believe Neil was masturbating et al so early on.

It's possible.

Totally possible. I started masturbating at 4. Started getting ejaculate around 9.

A huge themeif not THE themeof the film is remembering things incorrectly. The fact it is highly implausible he had been masturbating for years at 8 years old is deliberately part of that theme: Neil has incorrect recollections too.

Absolutely definitely medically possible (albeit not common I suppose). I ejaculated for the first time when I had just turned 9 (but like another poster stated it wasn't normal color) and I had been masturbating for a couple of years prior to that (though not in the traditional way), most times to orgasm. People mature in different ways at different times.

I don't think it's medically impossible.
I only discovered masturbation at about that age, but ejaculation followed fairly soon. I think I was about 10 (although there was very little of it and it was clear/murky rather than pure white)
My name is Mike. His name is Bob

Of course it is. Uncommon, yes, but not medically impossible.
I entered puberty when I was only 7 or 8 years old. I was also about a foot taller than anyone else in my class, so maybe I was just a freak.

What are you talking about!?!?
Clearly you were not paying attention. The scene where he was watching his mom happened AFTER he had been with coach. Remember him saying "I can't wait to tell coach". Then after he says, "Wait, let me go back and explain"

Actually I got the opposite from that scene. He was watching his mother go down on a man at a very young age.. that ALONE is traumatic, which is where all his problems started. If he weren't watching his own mother, he would have focused his sexual feelings towards the woman, not the man, but it was his MOM so his psyche became confused and lusted after the man to deal with the traumatic experience.

I think the point was to prove that Neil was born homosexual.
By making him have an orgasm before having any kind of sexual relation makes it clear that his sexual orientation wasnt defined by the molestation he was subjected to.

Humans are sexual from birth or before in some cases.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/sexdevelop.htm
Boys can have a dry orgasm (no ejaculation) from a very early age, although there are no real studies that have been able to determine if there is an age when they are developed enough. Most boys discover the ability between the ages of 8 and 12, but it can happen earlier or later, depending on the circumstances and environment.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_youngest_age_a_boy_can_orgasm#ixzz18MiSUDx3

C'mon, they knew exactly what they were saying when they added that it was the first time "jizz actually squirted out my dick when I came".
"Believe not what you only wish to believe, but that which truth demands"

It is medically possibly to get fluid through masturbation even younger than 8 years old. However, production of sperm does not begin until the onset of puberty. The character may be describing this fluid, which at that age should not be reproductively viable.

99% impossible. Not sure why they put this in the movie. They simply could have had the boy experiencing an orgasm. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the filmmakers are not aware that a male of any age can have an orgasm. So based on the rest of the film, I can only conclude that they meant to say he had an orgasm at age 8.

This message has been deleted.

It's sad that the prospect of a movement in cinema focused on gays is considered "made to shock audiences."
As far as "Araki's paedo fantasies" or whatever bullsh*t the other poster said, tell that to Scott Heim who wrote the book based on his fascination with human psychiatry.
"Anyone who agrees to rub their breasts live on television is obviously inexcusably disturbed."

I agree with you..even though the film is good at parts..i think its made to shock audiences.check out the director's Wikipedia page..it says "he is involved in New Queer Cinema".
that explains pretty much everything,right??
but since he is married to that busty b!tch Kathleen Robertson,i dont think he is a homo.

Hello elemental2k,
I know this is an old post but should you still be around - let me thank you, this is an excellent comment on what was happening in the movie! Great post!
I wish the lines which you cited
"what made me draw that conclusion is when he's convincing his best friend that what coach and him had was something special, that he really loved him. that he was special, his favourite." -
were the final ones of the movie.
Kind regards
sprendlinger

I thought it was plain that Neil was an unreliable narrator, as we all are when relating any sort of childhood story, let alone those involving trauma.
The whole film explores the link between false memories and trauma.

i doubt that ever happened. i think the true story was that neil saw coach as a father figure and the coach exploited that and molested him, then he up and left him feeling used and abused. it confused and warped him, made him think the fascination with coach and the longing was sexual in nature, when in reality he just wanted a father and a friend.
you see more of it when neils older and a prostitute, he has no interest in relationships, most of his clients look like coach, he even states he is attracted to the guy swinging the baseball bat who as it happens looks exactly like coach.
i think at the end after the rape his world shatters and he realises when he has the heart to heart with brian that the coach molested the both of them.
what made me draw that conclusion is when he's convincing his best friend that what coach and him had was something special, that he really loved him. that he was special, his favourite.
then at the end when he says the same thing to brian about being the special one being the favourite, its with a sense of cynicalism, like as though he finally realises it was a lie.

It's not meant to be a realistic film. It's merely Gregg Araki's pedo-fantasy.
He hasn't really succeeded in making Paedophilia seem appealing then has he. Can't say this movie made me want to be one.
A lady walks into a cocktail bar and orders a Double Entendre.The barman gives her one

It's not meant to be a realistic film. It's merely Gregg Araki's pedo-fantasy.

I think the movie tries to tell he was quite sexually mature at that age, but he was still a kid, and that's why he felt things for the pedophile coach