From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Sep 13 2009 - 16:10:29 PDT
oh my alla
who defined sexuality as lack of innocence?
childhood erections are sexual
little girls have orgasms
these are facts
NATURAL
the problem arises when (mostly white guys) get off on children
period
children are sexual beings
so are dogs and birds and...
denial of this is stupid
(perhaps this is part of the conversation stan was having in the film)
i would say there is a huge psych problem if a child is not sexual
as far as jonas's denial - i don't buy it
i have direct experience with him being - dare i say prudish - about
someones 'sexual' film
but whatever who cares really
he supported it or he didn't
he voted it into essential cinema or he didn't
why does that matter so much?
what is important is stan - i am sure he pulled it for a reason
well beyond jonas's reaction - if any
why is jonas a factor even in something about stan?
this is hierarchical (and perhaps patriarchal) in a weird direction
cari machet
nyc 347-298-9818
AIM carismachet
email suppressed
http://tiny.cc/bbvCR
Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jim Carlile <email suppressed> wrote:
> In a message dated 9/12/2009 10:30:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
>
> Have you actually seen the Brakhage films under consideration here?
> These films do not show child sex, but they also do not just show
> totally "innocent" nudity of the beach-snapshot variety. In "Song 9,"
> for example, there is a little boy with an erection. When I showed
> this film in a small town in Connecticut in 1967, it elicited a very
> angry response from an, um, older matron.
>
> Childhood erections are not sexual. They're innocent. And in the past,
> general child nudity was never considered to be sexual unless it was overt.
> Nowadays it is. If anyone is considering Brakhage's film to be child porn,
> then this is a fairly recent development (I'm not sure anyone is, but don't
> get them started...)
>
> It's because of this that I doubt Mekas or others condemned the film at the
> time.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.