I recently saw the musical Spring Awakening, based on the turn-of-the-century German play of the same title by Frank Wedekind. Both the play and musical explore the sexual awakening of juveniles (@14 yrs. old) in a sexually-repressed society. Both demand two pretty explicit sex scenes from the actors. Now, though the female actor looked stunningly young, I suspect that she was at least 18, as was her male counterpart.

My question is, outside of the legal arguments which I am sure are also quite nuanced, how do you feel, personally, or dare I say morally, about a minor playing sex scenes in theater or on film? Should the theater/film compromise artistic integrity, hiring only youthful adult actors to play minor roles that require acting out sexually explicit scenes? Or is there a clear enough distinction between artistic sexual contact and social sexual contact that makes one acceptable and the other not?

[I know there are some that would find sex in both contexts acceptable. I don't wish to exclude such people, but that's not what this question is about. Essentially I want to know, accepting the social perception that sex involving minors is "bad," should exceptions be made for artistic sexual contact?]

With the way you word the question I will answer that I think it is not acceptable to have children in these sexual roles.

If the reason we do not allow children to legally have sexual relationships is because they are too young to make such decisions and behave maturely and responsibly and because their actions could cause psychological and/or social long-term damage then this shouldn't change just because a camera is rolling. A child that is not mature enough to handle sex is probably also not mature enough to separate fantasy from fiction.

However, I think we're much too uptight about sex in the United States. The idea that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 or 16 year old is statutory rape is ridiculous. An arbitrary line drawn at any particular age is prone to problems, but what else can we do? A line has to be drawn somewhere because there will always be people that attempt to push that line further and further back.

My wife and I watched a movie on HBO a few months ago that we found a bit shocking. A young girl, while bent over at a water fountain, gave a young boy a very erotic kiss on the lips. We just stared at each other and were stunned that that scene was permitted in the film. Not that we personally found it to be immoral, but we were not expecting such a scene to get through the censors.

So in answer to your question I believe that it is not logically consistent to allow children to act out sexual roles in films but not allow them to do the same in society.

My question is, outside of the legal arguments which I am sure are also quite nuanced, how do you feel, personally, or dare I say morally, about a minor playing sex scenes in theater or on film? Should the theater/film compromise artistic integrity, hiring only youthful adult actors to play minor roles that require acting out sexually explicit scenes? Or is there a clear enough distinction between artistic sexual contact and social sexual contact that makes one acceptable and the other not?

I'm probably stating the obvious here but it really depends on whether or not there is a realistic possibility that allowing the young person to play the role is likely to cause them harm. Where that possibility exists, those in charge of a production should err on the side of caution.

I'm sure this is how they already handle the issue.

Well yeah, but the devil is in the details. Deciding on the criteria of what constitutes a risk and what is harmful is problematic. Do children have time for relativism?

Niall001 wrote:Well yeah, but the devil is in the details. Deciding on the criteria of what constitutes a risk and what is harmful is problematic. Do children have time for relativism?

Well, another question is just how prevalent is this in film? One of the more heavy examples has to be Jodi Foster's performance in Taxi Driver...at least at the time it was. She was very young (13?) and played a prostitute. Now, not many scenes had her in actual intercorse situations, but there was some heavy shit in that role and she played it all.

Is it just the portrayal of the act or the overall material to be questioned? Jodi seems to have turned out fine.

Mr. P.

Chris wrote:A child that is not mature enough to handle sex is probably also not mature enough to separate fantasy from fiction.

But we don't seem to have a problem demanding children to separate fantasy and fiction when acting out murders or other illegal acts. Likewise, these kids aren't actually having sex on stage/set; they're acting as though they are having sex.

Niall wrote:Do children have time for relativism?

Or, more to the point, do producers have time for relativism?

Mr. P. wrote:Well, another question is just how prevalent is this in film?

Your question made me think of Dakota Fanning who was recently noted for her work as a victim in a rape scene. Upon searching I found the name of the film, Hound Dog, and this link "The Ethics of Show Business Kids: Paul Petersen's Crusade and the Betrayal of Dakota Fanning." Briefly perusing "A Minor Consideration," the site where this article is located, I found it to be relatively ooky. But the article is pertinent to the discussion here.

irishrose wrote:My question is, outside of the legal arguments which I am sure are also quite nuanced, how do you feel, personally, or dare I say morally, about a minor playing sex scenes in theater or on film? Should the theater/film compromise artistic integrity, hiring only youthful adult actors to play minor roles that require acting out sexually explicit scenes? Or is there a clear enough distinction between artistic sexual contact and social sexual contact that makes one acceptable and the other not?

[I know there are some that would find sex in both contexts acceptable. I don't wish to exclude such people, but that's not what this question is about. Essentially I want to know, accepting the social perception that sex involving minors is "bad," should exceptions be made for artistic sexual contact?]

I have a real problem with the sexual exploitation of children under any circumstances. And, although I realize we are here talking about acting and simulation rather than the real thing, so much travels under the umbrella of "art," I can see a real danger of exploitation even under those circumstances.

That said, I think Mr. P makes a good point talking about Jodi Foster in "Taxi." I'm sure there are other examples in which the actor was a minor and performed in such a role with no adverse consequences.

Frankly, I think the exceptions should be rare and should depend on the context and the maturity of the actor involved. Obviously, I'm speaking more of emotional and intellectual maturity than chronological age. I would hope producers and directors would err on the side of caution though.

So I guess my answer is a caveat-laden "yes."

George

I think it might be allowed if there is a good reason, such as the adaptation of Nabokov's Lolita.. I think 16 would be a good limit.
In Adrian Lyne's movie, the actress, Dominique Swaine, was only 15 in 1997.
But there are rules the movie industry has to follow, for example:

# As she was under age 18 when LOLITA was filmed, an adult body double had to be used for some of the sex scenes.
# Since she was only 15 at the time of LOLITA'S (1997) filming, a pillow had to be placed between her and Jeremy Irons' lap during all their scenes together.

In an ideal world it would all depend on the maturity of the actor chosen. If there is a possibility that he might be hurt emotionally then he should not be chosen for the part. I think this is as important as setting an age limit.
I have seen "Lolita" twice (as it re-ran on cable TV): the first time I was stunned, but the second time the film seemed much more acceptable, as if I had read a lot shocking films into the film the first time.

So, this is worth thinking about, and I don't have a clear-cut opinion.