LTROI in Gay Horror Stories and Poems

[Angelalex242]

It's in my best interest to declare it canon. And their best interests comes to that.

I can think of NO way an unturned Oskar/Owen ends up as anything short of the worst sort of tragedy. A tragedy bad enough to make Romeo and Juliet breath a sigh of relief they didn't end up that bad off.

They died young, these poor suckers had to live...one changing, one not, till they no longer knew eachother.

At any rate, relevant to thread topic, the turned couple cannot rightly be considered gay, I think.

[Ash]

I'd thought you meant lobbing something incendiary amid the Great Unwashed..

I hope that wasn't a case of my reputation preceding me. I'm very gentle by nature.
I raised the issue because I think the writer would balk at any suggestion that homosexual child abusers can be homosexuals, rather than purely pedophiles.
And your definition of Hakan as being a "homosexual pedophile" would also draw the ire of the gay/lesbian community who view no connection between the two.
In the view of the LGBT community, homosexuals can't be pedophiles, because once they abuse children they become pedophiles and can no longer be called homosexuals. Roman Catholic priests for example. I suppose the same would apply to heterosexuals.
I'm not sure if I agree with that view or not. I'm not so sure about anything of this nature.

[sauvin]

I'd thought you meant lobbing something incendiary amid the Great Unwashed..

I hope that wasn't a case of my reputation preceding me. I'm very gentle by nature.
I raised the issue because I think the writer would balk at any suggestion that homosexual child abusers can be homosexuals, rather than purely pedophiles.
And your definition of Hakan as being a "homosexual pedophile" would also draw the ire of the gay/lesbian community who view no connection between the two.
In the view of the LGBT community, homosexuals can't be pedophiles, because once they abuse children they become pedophiles and can no longer be called homosexuals. Roman Catholic priests for example. I suppose the same would apply to heterosexuals.
I'm not sure if I agree with that view or not. I'm not so sure about anything of this nature.

I'm not familiar with these issues; if the LGBT community is so certain it's not possible to be both, then perhaps their own perception is skewed or politicised. Hakan is strongly attracted to children. This makes him a paedophile. He has a very strong preference for males. This makes him homosexual. In my way of thinking, this makes him a homosexual paedophile. That's not to say they're connected! There are men who like little girls - they'd be "straight" in the conventional sense, even if they're no less abominable than men who like boys. And, of course, there are men who prefer men (and likewise women who like women) and who can't countenance the very idea of having any kind of intimate contact with a child. These people are simply homosexual.

In other words, Hakan is an intersection (more like "collision"), and it's necessary to use both adjectives precisely because the one does not imply the other.

[Ash]

As I said, I don't profess to understand the finer details of how things work.
But it would be a mistake to see things in absolute terms of right and wrong, and from a fixed point in time.
When I lived in Britain, The Sun was publishing pictures of 16 year old topless Page 3 girls. That would make the hundreds of thousands of Sun readers pedophiles by today's standards. And all of them in possession of child pornography if it was today.
I guess the big mistake would be to keep a fixed view of morality in an ever-changing world.

[sauvin]

As I said, I don't profess to understand the finer details of how things work.
But it would be a mistake to see things in absolute terms of right and wrong, and from a fixed point in time.
When I lived in Britain, The Sun was publishing pictures of 16 year old topless Page 3 girls. That would make the hundreds of thousands of Sun readers pedophiles by today's standards. And all of them in possession of child pornography if it was today.
I guess the big mistake would be to keep a fixed view of morality in an ever-changing world.

By today's standards where? In the US, certainly. Laws and psychiatric opinions in other countries may vary. If in Britain is is now against the law to view or possess images of nude or seminude women under the age of (say) 18, it wouldn't mean that folks who have such publications squirreled away in their basements or attics necessarily paedophiles because, because while the term does have a dizzying array of "definitions", a common characteristic involves "sexual interest". One could easily imagine some old fogey keeping years and years of back issues of this publication for the ball scores without ever even glancing at these "illicit" images.

Short story? I agree that viewing things in "absolute" terms is rarely wise.

[a_contemplative_life]

What irks me is the mindless conclusion that Eli is a pedophile because she's 200 years old and fell in love with Oskar. I have seen this sort of thing stated over at the IMDB board and it really makes me wonder whether people stop and think before they post/blog this sort of drivel.

[sauvin]

What irks me is the mindless conclusion that Eli is a pedophile because she's 200 years old and fell in love with Oskar. I have seen this sort of thing stated over at the IMDB board and it really makes me wonder whether people stop and think before they post/blog this sort of drivel.

Dunno how "mindless" is such a conclusion if the true state of Eli's mind is in question. In both movies, when asked how old she is, each girl says "I'm twelve, but I've been twelve for a very long time". Is she talking about her mind and her heart, or is she just mentioning what's apparently true of her body? Maybe her answer is a subtle evasion.

At the same time, folks everywhere tend to latch onto what they can understand, ignore what they can't, and occasionally arrive at some comically unsustainable conclusions. This seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, at IMDB.

[EEA]

The problem with this blogs is that to me they offer no proof of what they say. If I were writting for example "Eli is looking for another caretaker in Oskar." I would them use Hakan as an example, the bed scene, and the pool scene to prove my point. But these blogs jump from this point to that other point that it just goes to nothing.

[a_contemplative_life]

What irks me is the mindless conclusion that Eli is a pedophile because she's 200 years old and fell in love with Oskar. I have seen this sort of thing stated over at the IMDB board and it really makes me wonder whether people stop and think before they post/blog this sort of drivel.

Dunno how "mindless" is such a conclusion if the true state of Eli's mind is in question. In both movies, when asked how old she is, each girl says "I'm twelve, but I've been twelve for a very long time". Is she talking about her mind and her heart, or is she just mentioning what's apparently true of her body? Maybe her answer is a subtle evasion.

At the same time, folks everywhere tend to latch onto what they can understand, ignore what they can't, and occasionally arrive at some comically unsustainable conclusions. This seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, at IMDB.

I'm prepared to admit that there is ambiguity about just how mature Eli is, from a mental standpoint. But to evaluate her strictly from a chronological perspective, when the story goes to some length to make it clear that she has not progressed beyond the age of 12 mentally, doesn't hold much water. And to suggest that Eli's interest in Oskar is one of sexual gratification or that she is using him as some sort of sex object, which is what pedophilia is really all about, is, I think, to grossly distort the overall theme of LTROI--friendship between children. It's grotesque and, I daresay, stupid.

[lombano]

What irks me is the mindless conclusion that Eli is a pedophile because she's 200 years old and fell in love with Oskar. I have seen this sort of thing stated over at the IMDB board and it really makes me wonder whether people stop and think before they post/blog this sort of drivel.

Dunno how "mindless" is such a conclusion if the true state of Eli's mind is in question. In both movies, when asked how old she is, each girl says "I'm twelve, but I've been twelve for a very long time". Is she talking about her mind and her heart, or is she just mentioning what's apparently true of her body? Maybe her answer is a subtle evasion.

But what, exactly, could she mean by that phrase? That she looks twelve is obvious; clearly that's not what Oskar is asking, and it can't be what she means, as Oskar can see she looks like a child and has just asked about being a vampire. She's clearly making a distinction between being twelve (inside) and the duration of her existence (a long time). I don't see what else she could mean other than that she's mentally twelve but chronologically much older. If she were avoiding the question she'd just say 'I'm twelve,' which Oskar has no way of disproving.