'Californication'

[Simo]

I think what he meant is he didnt find out her age until after it had happened, at which point he refused to take part in it anymore.

She knew what was going on, he didnt.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think what he meant is he didnt find out her age until after it had happened, at which point he refused to take part in it anymore.

She knew what was going on, he didnt.

That often doesn't matter either, but let's not get all legal about it

The point is, imo, if I asked the question "should statutory rape be shown on TV, with the victim displayed topless and as a willing participant", a fair few people would agree that this should be censored as part of the general practice of not promoting underaged sex and sex crime.

Wrap it up in a nice big-boobied package and people's standards change a little.

 

[Samwise]

That often doesn't matter either, but let's not get all legal about it

The point is, imo, if I asked the question "should statutory rape be shown on TV, with the victim displayed topless and as a willing participant", a fair few people would agree that this should be censored as part of the general practice of not promoting underaged sex and sex crime.

Wrap it up in a nice big-boobied package and people's standards change a little.

It's a fictional series. It's not promoting underaged sex crimes.

Do the Kill Bill movies promote murder?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

It's a fictional series. It's not promoting underaged sex crimes.

Do the Kill Bill movies promote murder?

fmd Sam

Like it or not there's an established convention against showing certain criminal acts in certain contexts

For whatever reason, it's ok to show murder in pretty much any context, but it's never been ok to show sex crime in a titillating or eroticised manner. Especially not actually showing the underaged character unclothed and acquiescing to her victimisation.

This is a pretty established standard and that's exactly why this caught people's attention

 

[Samwise]

fmd Sam

Like it or not there's an established convention against showing certain criminal acts in certain contexts

For whatever reason, it's ok to show murder in pretty much any context, but it's never been ok to show sex crime in a titillating or eroticised manner. Especially not actually showing the underaged character unclothed and acquiescing to her victimisation.

This is a pretty established standard and that's exactly why this caught people's attention

Rubbish, what established convention?

It's never been ok? Kubrick released Lolita 45 years ago. They even made a remake of it 10 years ago.

This is not the reason it caught peoples attention. Prudes kicked up a stink, cos of the nudity, swearing and drug use. And i'm pretty sure those christian vigils were because they were upset that Duchovny's character threw up after smoking weed and rooting a chick.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Rubbish, what established convention?

It's never been ok? Kubrick released Lolita 45 years ago. They even made a remake of it 10 years ago.

This is not the reason it caught peoples attention. Prudes kicked up a stink, cos of the nudity, swearing and drug use. And i'm pretty sure those christian vigils were because they were upset that Duchovny's character threw up after smoking weed and rooting a chick.

Jesus Sam, stop denying the obvious.

Murder and violence- has always been pretty free flowing on TV

sex- has always been, for whatever reason, more prone to censorship

kiddy sex/paedophilia/sex crime- has always attracted the closest attention from the censors

Anyway, Lolita is, after all, about an illicit and illegal sexual relationship, and ultimately a relationship of victimisation. It's about an obsessive infatuation- it doesn't seem to morally equivocate the conduct of the two parties like this does

 

[Samwise]

sex- has always been, for whatever reason, more prone to censorship

kiddy sex/paedophilia/sex crime- has always attracted the closest attention from the censors

and yet the censors don't have a problem with it. The show meets all regulatory codes of conduct.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

and yet the censors don't have a problem with it. The show meets all regulatory codes of conduct.

I'm interested as to what the NZ censors will say

I certainly maintain it falls into a questionable area when it displays an underage character in such a titillating way and then fails to condemn her statutory rape

 

[Samwise]

I'm interested as to what the NZ censors will say

I certainly maintain it falls into a questionable area when it displays an underage character in such a titillating way and then fails to condemn her statutory rape

I guess we'll find out in 5 - 10 years when you guys catch up.

 

[El Diablo]

iw wonder if they would object if it was a sheep instead of an actress playing a 16 year old?

 

[Thomas]

I don't see the problem.

She plays a 16 year old character and 16 is legal where I live.

Should I be bothered?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't see the problem.

She plays a 16 year old character and 16 is legal where I live.

Should I be bothered?

Well, if it makes you feel better when having a tug over a "16 year old"

But the point is that it's a storyline about statutory rape

 

[Thomas]

I don't have a tug over a "16" year old?

Some blokes can refrain from tugging their dick whenever tits are on screen.

And are you sure it is statutory rape?

 

[El Diablo]

Well, if it makes you feel better when having a tug over a "16 year old"

But the point is that it's a storyline about statutory rape

it was a story about seduction

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't have a tug over a "16" year old?

Some blokes can refrain from tugging their dick whenever tits are on screen.

lol fair enough. Some people will though, I'm sure.

And are you sure it is statutory rape?

I may be mistaken, if so I wish someone had pointed it out earlier

I was assuming that the AOC was 18 as I thought it was in most American states

 

[Shorty]

Thierry,this isn't the first time this has happened in a television series and it's not the first time channel 10 have done it as well.

I remember an episode of 'Dawson's Creek' had a 15 year old boy sleeping with a 34 year old woman and there was a sex scene also.

If the scene was plain old missionary and 2 seconds long you wouldn't have posted in this thread at all.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

it was a story about seduction

statutory rape= having sex with someone who is underage

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Thierry,this isn't the first time this has happened in a television series and it's not the first time channel 10 have done it as well.

I remember an episode of 'Dawson's Creek' had a 15 year old boy sleeping with a 34 year old woman and there was a sex scene also.

If the scene was plain old missionary and 2 seconds long you wouldn't have posted in this thread at all.

I think in Desperate Housewives Eva Longoria did it with a 17 year old as well

I know in NZ it's not actually a crime if a women does it (I'm serious) so I didn't really take much notice

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Thierry,this isn't the first time this has happened in a television series and it's not the first time channel 10 have done it as well.

I remember an episode of 'Dawson's Creek' had a 15 year old boy sleeping with a 34 year old woman and there was a sex scene also.

If the scene was plain old missionary and 2 seconds long you wouldn't have posted in this thread at all.

Also, neither of the male characters got their d*cks out on screen

In other words, the "victim" of the illegal sex was not presented in such an eroticised way

 

[El Diablo]

i'd root Eva Longoria