Saturday, January 20, 2007

The Dakota Fanning Controversy

The link below will take you to Kingdom Advancer's blog. I highly recommend reading his commentary on the Dakota Fanning controversy. I couldn't have said it any better.

For those who are unaware, Dakota Fanning is a highly acclaimed young actress - age 12. An upcoming movie of hers features some rather "in your face" sexual situations including a rape and mutual "pleasuring." There are many of us who have raised concerns over the years about the increasing sexualization of young people by filmmakers and ad pitch men. This film is just another step in a very bad direction.

As an aside, why is it that liberals never seem to be vocal about defending virtue? Why can't they defend celebacy, purity, innocence, morality and the like. Whenever they raise a squeal to defend something these days, it's usually the indefensible. All in the name of "art", "freedom of expression" or "free speech." Unless you're conservative, then they want to censor you.

Anyway, kudos to Kingdom Advancer for nailing it spot on.

Kingdom Advancer

6 comments:

Kingdom Advancer said...

Thank you so much for doing your part in your space of the blogosphere.

"Indefensible." That's a good one that could be added to the list of adjectives at the beginning of my article. Although, in fact, the list could've been VERY long. I wanted to keep it practical, so I tried to keep it to words starting with "in" or "un". That's why "indefensible" would work. Anyways...

As for your question: I'm a bit baffled by it myself. Liberals, who often seem to be "big government, universal healthcare, welfare, etc." type people, then say that "the government shouldn't get involved" with this 'cause it's "art." It's a double-standard. The sad thing is: some people trying to block the film agree with that sentiment, saying that "they don't want the government dictating in the creative arts." While I can see how that could become a problem, what don't these people understand about: 1) Child abuse; 2)Child porn ; and 3)Fodder for pedophiles ?!?!?!

It comes down to this with liberals: do they just like to "play" devil's advocate or are they plainly and simply the devil's advocate? That may sound harsh, but I need only point to one issue for now: abortion. I'll digress from there...

Keep praying, keep blogging, keep raising awareness...

SolaMeanie said...

Thanks, K.A...

And amen again. As another aside to this whole issue, have you watched the media coverage of the Shawn Hornbeck kidnapping? Isn't it interesting that some of them are actually questioning the boy for not contacting his parents. Hint hint..maybe the boy actually wanted to be with his kidnapper for a tryst.

Sick, and beyond sick.

SolaMeanie said...

Just to clarify my comment..I think some in the media are speculating that Shawn wanted the suspected trysts with Devlin. I don't think that for one minute.

Cindy said...

Joel, thanks so much for providing the Kingdom Advancer link. I do think a hue and cry should be raised about this outrageous matter, and I plan to blog about it early next week. It sickens and saddens me that this could be viewed as worthwhile by anyone. It says a lot about the world in which we're living.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Well, it seems that something fishy was going on in that case. I just don't know what it is.

How I apply that to the Dakota Fanning movie is this: some are speculating that Devlin kidnapped Ben Ownby (the other boy) to be a replacement to Shawn Hornbeck, because Shawn was getting older, and was no longer--as they put it--at Devlin's--or pedophiles' in general--"fantasy age." Ben Ownby is a 13-year-old--"who looks like an 11-year-old," as they say--and thereby is in the "fantasy age" range.
Dakota Fanning? She's 12, going on 13, but in the movie plays a 9-year-old (I believe.) So, she's inside this sick "fantasy age" for pedophiles. Why would anybody want to make a movie with a girl being raped and participating in "mutual pleasuring"--as you put it? It is only going to make Dakota the "object"--quite literally--of pedophiles' "affection," and it is going to put other innocent children at risk.

It's as though the makers of the movie are challenging the pedophiles in a duel to see who can be more sick. Seriously.

SolaMeanie said...

Well, there is a group of people pushing the idea to lower the age of consent. At one time I would have thought it couldn't happen. Now I'm not so sure. I hope and pray not.

Look also at the double standard with teachers seducing their students. If a male teacher does it, he gets sent up the river. But if a female teacher seduces a male student, she gets a slap on the wrist or a medal. The same standard should apply to everyone, and I am beginning to lean toward one solution. The electric chair.

Well, okay..maybe that's harsh. But there needs to be some severity to this offense and the current way these cases are handled (like Vermont) is criminal in and of itself.