I worked with the actor who was the Daddy in that film. A bazillion years ago, when I was a Production Assistant ( gofer), I drove him home. He told me about having recently been down south, working with Spielberg on the movie. The footage seen is a fraction of what was shot. Still, great care was taken during the shooting of the scenes. He said it was an awful thing to go through at any rate, as clinical as filmmaking often becomes. I wanna say Leonard Jackson was his name, but I don’t own a copy of the movie, and am not sure. Since then, I’ve shot sex scenes but never a sexual assault scene. I dread the day.
As for the question I’m quoting- it’s the core difference between an “R” and an “NC-17” rating. The scene depicts a rape. The sexual act is not show in graphic detail. ( I have to take a second here, and say that clicking on this thread was scary. It’s a confirmation of the intellectual rigor of our community here, that this kind of discussion can even take place without it deteriorating into something awful…). So, the act took place in the film but was NOT filmed, and the young actress was not indeed raped. It was a dramatization thereof, and so I’d WAG that it cannot construe child pornography at all. Of course, that distinction makes it no less heinous, but in terms of this thread, I’d think it’s not porn because nothing was shown.
As far as the posts talking about what is suggested, and what is shown with underage minors, I’ll stand by the law in word and intent here. While it’s completely true that just because your body turns the age of 16 ( I grew up in Pennsylvania, at the time I was becoming a wee swain, the age of legal consent was 16) doesn’t mean that you are emotionally prepared for the “act d’amour”. That’s not the point- one state decides 14- HAWAII?? Oye…- another state keeps 17 or 18 as an age of consent. One assumes that the lawmakers were trying to strike that balance between religious/historical precedent( Jews marrying off sons at age of 13 to 14 year old girls ) and other moral pressures and precedents.
I’m not condoning pedophilia at all, I’m simply aware of the slippery slope involved in younger aged people having sex. My neice is 20 now, but I remember her at 13, 14, 15-etc. She was already becoming active- was she being raped? Not at all, as far as she’s ever told me. She did things with guys, out of lust, love, etc- but she was consensual. So, defining child porn has always been, to me, a knee-jerk safetly thing. Defining age of consent is a more complex issue. At 14, my neice was consenting to whatever she was doing. At the age of 15, some other girl might not be.
I must say, I totally disagree with the poster who said that viewing child porn might take the edge off of a pedophile’s desire for sex with a minor. WAG here, but it’s a mental health issue. One doesn’t cure mental problems with videotapes- “A Clockwork Orange” notwithstanding. I mean, I view more pedestrian adult porn. Whether I go months or days between seeing porn, is almost irrelevant as to whether or not I’ve an active sex drive.
Two cents deposited. Moving along.