If you actually look into it, her mom was there and the scene was shot fully clothed. There was no indecent exposure, there was no actual physical contact between the two children involved in it.
They're just making more out of it than there actually is.
2007-01-25 08:36:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by darkemoregan 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
It was "the way" they handled the situation. They covered the problem up. Here in Canada the priests that committed sexual abuse where sent to the First Nations Reserves and they continued to abuse children there. The thing is they were sent there because it was thought it didn't matter what happened to the natives. Now whenever someone talks to natives here and even mentions they are Christian, the natives do not want to talk or have anything to do with any Christian. It gave such a bad name to Christians all over. It is still a very touchy subject in much of Canada. Other Christians denominations have other ways of dealing with it, but the only way to deal with it according to the Bible is to report the abuse to authorities when there is a confession, and to disassociate any unrepentant wrongdoer. There are also many warnings that should be given once a person has committed this, so that the congregation can be safe.
2016-03-29 02:28:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It is ACTING. If you can't handle it, don't watch. This girl had a set full of people around, her agent, her PARENTS, and her teacher. She is an intelligent young person and she and her family made a collective decision to do this work. It is "art" and if you can hang a picture of the virgin mary covered in elephant dung in a public museum, you sure as hell can ACT like an abuse victim.
Isn't this a good way to open some dialogue about the subject? Why would anyone want to suppress something like this? The scene doesn't show anything other than her face, a zipper going down, and her hand... its not like a re-enactment or anything.
People really get their panties in a twist over the stupidest things these days.
2007-01-25 08:40:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Goose&Tonic 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I wouldn't think so. If there is no real abuse taking place and no inappropriate touching or anything of that nature than I don't think it's illegal. And if she truly understands her acting role and what she is portraying then for me, that is all the more reason it would be okay for her to play that kind of a role.
Now the problem is people are going to cause a HUGE stink about this due to the nature and context of the film. This is inevitable!
To be honest I don't really know if it's legal or not. But in my opinion, it is more of a moral issue than anything else.
2007-01-25 08:36:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ryeroe 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it isn't true. Fictional abuse is a long way from real abuse. The key is parental permission, and the absence of any real abuse during filming.
Dakota Fanning isn't even old enough to watch many of the movies she stars in, but again that's a parental matter (except for porn).
2007-01-25 08:33:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's legal. This should'nt be such a big deal if Dakota wants to do it. If she is forced thats another thing.
2007-01-25 08:30:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by popeyethesadist 5
·
2⤊
0⤋