This is topic Kidman in BIRTH: inappropriate scenes with 10 year old boy in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003288

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-14-2004, 07:31 PM:
 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004271117,00.html

NICOLE Kidman has sparked outrage with her new film in which she gets passionate in the bath with a ten-year-old boy.

The shocking movie Birth will feature bizarre scenes of her nude and getting romantic with an underage lad she believes is the reincarnation of her dead husband.

But horrified executives may have to pull the plug on the £30million production after seeing the final version of the movie, according to a US magazine.

The weird flick sees Kidman playing a widow, and two scenes have got New Line Cinema hot under the collar. Kidman and the boy strip off together to submerge in bubbles and then they even lock lips.

Insiders say the film has been plagued by constant creative battles and rewrites. Now angry executives have protested to producers that the bath and kissing scenes are “borderline disgusting” to watch.

And the PR companies who are supposed to be promoting the film are calling it “a publicity nightmare,” reports The National Enquirer.

END OF NEWS ITEM FROM THE SUN.

My take:
I heard about this on the morning radio stations and I even checked imdb forums. I am still shocked that a hollywood director would be this stupid to film this. I am not a stiff prude as people can tell by my previous posts. But there is a line that people should draw. I heard about Tin Drum and from a magazine article I read, that was edited together well to prevent the actors from engaging in anything seriously inappropriate. Even for Lolita, they upped the age of the actress, because the novel had a younger age for the character. Plus they used body doubles for Swain.

For scenes like this, even the 13-15 age range will have most people uncomfortable. But for a 10 year old?? I think one should draw the line. I haven't seen the scene. But it would have been very easy to make the same point without having the kid in that scene to such a degree. All they had to do was show Kidman taking off her clothes in one angle, and then show her getting into the bathtub without showing the boy's face. Then they could do a fadeaway from the boy's point of view showing only Kidman's face approaching the camera to make out. That in itself would make quite a few people uncomfortable, but would at least not have the audience worried about whether the child actor was mde to be part of the scene. If anything, i think it detracts from the narrative because no matter what people say along the lines of "Hey it's only a movie , and not real life" , one can't avoid thinking "Hey , but the kid was in the bathtub making out with a naked Kidman in real life, even if it was for a shoot."

Then you will have people who will say "hey , if you were that boy , wouldnt' you have wanted to be doing that with Kidman". My view is this "hey maybe if he was at least 13 or 14." Yeah kids are maturing faster lately, but 10 is still 10 in any era. I think the parents should have put their foot down and not given permission for the scene. Then again, I thought scenes were needlessly explicit for Pretty Baby.

I don't know. I haven't seen any angry denials yet. So it makes me think the article is fairly accurate. I would actually be interested in audience reactions when this movie comes out.

[ 06-16-2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 06-15-2004, 12:29 AM:
 
If you believe anything you read in the Sun or the Enquirer, I've got a nice house in D.C. at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to sell you.

Nicole can get inappropriate with me anytime.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 06-15-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
Dunno whether or not that story is true, but.....
IT'S ACTING! WHO CARES!

danny
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-15-2004, 07:26 AM:
 
I agree with Dan.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-15-2004, 08:40 AM:
 
Probably one of the only good things about The Sun is Page 3
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-15-2004, 09:40 AM:
 

quote:

---

IT'S ACTING! WHO CARES!

---

I see it more as "it's moviemaking". Use your editing tricks to actually have Kidman act like she is really in front of a kid who she thinks is her husband reincarnated. What is the acting involved if you really have to make it explicitly visualized for the audience. If they were adults, it would be different. If it was a book, that's different. When Linda Blair was in Exorcist, they actually tried to shield her from some of the subject matter used(yeah I know that's hard to believe , considering some of the stuff she did in the years subsequent to that movie). Another difference is the child actor is not some older kid playing a character younger than he really is. The actor is actually 10. Try releasing this in your theater and tell me later that no one will care.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-15-2004, 02:43 PM:
 
Pravin, forum policy states you must paste the text of the newslink in your post. This thread will be deleted if you do not do so.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-15-2004, 08:01 PM:
 
Is it just me or do other people enjoy it when others get offended about things that do not directly affect them?
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-15-2004, 10:37 PM:
 
It's not just you.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-16-2004, 01:56 PM:
 
Steve, it's not like I am not going to waste a bunch of time organizing a boycott or anything similar of this movie. I just found the story hard to believe and lay my thoughts out. It's a Film Yak forum and this thread is movie related. Wasn't trying to stop a filmmaker from making a movie about certain subject matter. Just suggested alternative ways to handle the same matter.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-17-2004, 12:14 AM:
 
Apparently the story is true, and I will definately be lining up to see this film. I have a thing for naked nicole kidman, and 10 year old boys.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-19-2004, 10:11 AM:
 
Okay... I'm not going to be politically correct about this.

[Assuming the story at the top of this thread is true.]

Tell me that anyone here wouldn't be "affected" for the rest of their life if they took a bath with Nicole Kidman and made out with her... even if they knew it was only a one-time affair and it was only "acting." Now imagine you're a ten-year-old kid and you understand even less about sexuality. These are the kinds of things which mess up anybody's head. Would you let your ten-year-old kid be a part of something like this? And, if you did, and he had emotional problems down the road, would you not question your wisdom down the road?

As for this notion of brushing it off just because it doesn't directly affect us... I don't know. Whenever there's a murder on the west side of town I usually think "I hope it's drug-related. Then I know it'll never affect me." But, before you know it, a guy like me (or a child) gets caught in the crossfire and I wonder if there's anything I should be doing or if I should continue to live in my little bubble where everything's okay. (How much did you pay attention to stories of suicide bombers in Israel before September 2001?)

They have laws about involving children in pornography. They have laws about anyone even looking at this kind of stuff! So why is it so different just because Nicole Kidman is involved?

[/Assuming the story at the top of this thread is true.]
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-19-2004, 12:50 PM:
 
First of all, pretending that this was a real event for a moment, I am not convinced that the boy would be scarred for life. There is a vast gulf of a difference between consenting activity and someone being preyed upon. Yes, I'm aware of "age of consent" issues but that is a legal definition and is designed to protect the weakest not necessarily the average. I think if you read on the topic you will find that most experts agree even the very young have a pretty good sense of what they want or don't want to do and ability and willingness to express it. There is a growing school of thought that our society's new insistance to try to deny the fact that people become sexual beings gradually not just overnight on their 16th, 17th, or 18th birthday, is actually detrimental. By that I mean like when a couple of little kids are caught "playing doctor" what would have been dealt with in the past with some helpful discussion nowadays they might rush a kid off into a sex offender program, treating him as a criminal. A good read on this topic, controversial when it came out, is Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex
by Judith Levine.

But...

...this isn't a real situation. It's a film set, on a soundstage, with a crew around. As such the potential for any sort of mind warping is, I think, minimal.

Unless of course someone is talking about being offended by the fictional situation in which case, too bad. It's fiction and we're only concerned with real harm to real kids (if any) not fictional harm to fictional kids.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-19-2004, 12:58 PM:
 
Now, read this entire thread over again and every time you see the name Nicole Kidman, substitute any of the following names:

Britney Spears
Drew Barrymore
Demi Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Jackson
Senator Hillary Clinton
Oprah
Rosie O'Donnell
or
Joe Redi-- I mean, Greg Anderson

Now I find it all very disturbing.

Steve... I'll pretend to hold judgment for now and then, perhaps 10 or 15 years from now, we'll just try to find this kid and see what happened to him. But, I'm curious. You seem to have studied "underage sex" issues a lot (!) and have decided it's not so bad. I, on the other hand, have an older brother who's a cop and was specifically assigned to child and/or sex abuse cases for a few years. I can't see much room for tolerance.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-19-2004, 02:09 PM:
 
I study a lot of things a lot. Go over to trainorders.com and see my lengthy discussion of steam heat & steam-jet air conditioning of passenger trains before head end (electric) power. One of my favorite inexplicably very narrow sub-interests under the broader category of being a train buff.

As for your list, why should I want to imagine the kid in the tub making out with Michael Moore? It wasn't Michael Moore! It was Nicole Kidman, for God's sake! Nicole Kidman! Yeah it makes a difference! LOL (I'm NOT suggesting tolerance for abusers. They should get put away for a long, long time if not for life. I'm questioning what is or isn't abuse. Getting in a tub with Nicole on a film set with many people in attendance isn't IMHO.)

Edit: Extra comment added.

[ 06-19-2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Steve Kraus ]
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-19-2004, 10:40 PM:
 
I have a friend who worked on the movie Auto Focus. For the sake of her privacy, I'll simply say she did a very important job on the set working closely with actors and the director. Before the movie was released and before I knew she'd worked on it, she brought up the subject out of the blue one day.

Apparently, the company had hired real swingers to work as extras on the movie. Needless to say, they got carried away. And there were other aspects of the production which simply went too far according to crew members. I'm not talking about a local, Utah crew which normally works on stuff like Everwood or Touched by an Angel. They didn't make Auto Focus in Utah. And my friend is definitely a progressive-thinking woman. But she said that one of the stars of the movie (I'll neglect to identify him too) had a really tough time doing certain scenes because, she said, he's a "happily married man" who truly loves his wife.

So, I don't tend to accept the notion that it's all fake on a movie set and it doesn't affect anyone who works on the production. I suppose if this particular crew had signed on to do a porno movie their attitudes would have been different. But they were working with an A-list cast and, supposedly, an A-list director. They were expecting a certain amount of restraint even if a major subject of the movie was sex. As Pravin has said already, you don't have to be explicit even if you're telling a disturbing story.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens to this Nicole Kidman movie.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-19-2004, 11:44 PM:
 
I'd get in a tub with Nicole Kidman. Although, she's probably the one who'd be affected for the rest of her life!

 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-20-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
I'm not sure what to make of your post, Greg. Because some adults acting in a sexy scene on a movie got carried away you fear our long suffering Nic is going to lose control with a 10 year old boy? It seems more than a bit unlikely don't you think? I'll stick to my assertion that the kid wasn't/won't be scarred or negatively affected one iota. On the contrary he'll have a great story to tell his friends.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-20-2004, 11:42 AM:
 
I suppose my overall point is that some things in the movies are more fake than others. When you're on the set, fake bullet hits and fake blood are pretty easy to deal with. There's a lot of fascinating technology making those things happen. But there's rarely fake nudity on these movies nor fake physical contact between naked people (although the extent of such contact can be "faked" through the magic of moviemaking). And people generally don't "fake" foul language either.

People argue all the time about why the MPAA and the American public seem to accept onscreen violence more easily than nudity, sex and/or foul language. It seems to me that, deep down, the audience realizes that some things are more fake than others. Whether you think that it's a double-standard at the MPAA, I can still understand the cultural tradition on this point.

James Cameron even bragged about the fact that the nude scenes in Titanic were the first ones he shot between Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. Why? Because he wanted to take advantage of the actors' real akwardness about being naked with each other at such an early stage. Granted, I see actors all the time who brag about their professionalism when they shoot sex scenes, but I'm having a difficult time naming an actor or actress who does a lot of sex scenes in movies and, yet, has had a longlasting marriage in real life.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-20-2004, 05:35 PM:
 
Fake nudity? Why would anyone need to fake it? There's nothing wrong with nudity. Just us folks as God and evolution made us. Never has their been demonstrable harm from being exposed to, um, the exposed. Some people sure get unhinged about it though.

Interesting point about marriages. No bearing at all on the topic at hand but it would be interesting to make a comparison but of course such comparison would need to be against other celebrities since their marriages are often short-lived anyway.
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-20-2004, 07:16 PM:
 
Ok, the names are just off the top of my head! Celebrity marriages usually don't last very long whether there is sex involved or not so everyone listed below as been married at least 3 years with children from their present spouse. Take this any way you want...

Ewan McGregor - Married to Eve Mavrakis since 1995, 2 daughters. Can you say TRAINSPOTTING!?!?!?

http://news.scotsman.com/movies.cfm?id=229442003

Ewan McGregor sex scenes will push censors to their limits

BRIAN PENDREIGH

SADO-MASOCHISTIC sex scenes in Ewan McGregor’s new film, Young Adam, are set to test the new liberal approach of Britain’s censors to the limit.

The film, which is based on a book by Scots beatnik Alexander Trocchi, contains an incendiary mix of sex and violence unprecedented in British cinema history.

In one scene, McGregor beats co-star Emily Mortimer on the bottom and then has sex.

The British Board of Film Classification - which draws the line at the erotic combination of sex and violence - said it would be looking "very carefully indeed" at the film, which is being promoted by industry giant Warner Brothers.

Writer-director David Mackenzie, who has described the film as the "Last Tango in Glasgow", admitted: "There is sex and violence in there, and the two are kind of linked."

Mackenzie said McGregor did actually spank Mortimer, daughter of writer John Mortimer. "They all went into the whole sexual side very much with their eyes open and as fine actors, and we’ve got some good stuff," he said. "They weren’t spanking very hard."

Advance footage of the erotic thriller - the book was first published by a French porn specialist in 1954 - has just been screened to critics and others in the industry.

The UK traditionally has the tightest film censorship in Western Europe, and while the BBFC has recently taken a more liberal view of adult films, it remains extremely sensitive about any link between sex and violence that could be construed as titillating.

Sue Clark, the BBFC’s head of communications, confirmed that the board had banned similar scenes in the past.

"Our attitude to sexual violence is that the combination of sex and violence - particularly if there are explicit images - can arouse certain people, and we look at it very carefully indeed," she said.

Peter Woods, an expert on British censorship, said Young Adam would be "pushing the boundaries" of film censorship.
"If the film follows the book, it will certainly give the BBFC something to think about."

Woods said officials at the BBFC had told him privately that they want to further relax restrictions on adult films. "They are waiting for the proper sort of material from the proper sort of distributors," he said.

An unshaven McGregor looks older and sleazier than ever before in the film, and appears in a number of steamy scenes with co-stars Mortimer and Tilda Swinton.

Hugh Jackman - Married to Doborra-Lee Furess since April of 1996, 1 child.

http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=37462&cat=Entertainment

Hugh Jackman's sex scenes with Kate Beckinsale just a job!
Sydney May 06, 2004 2:22:36 PM IST

What does Hugh Jackman's actress wife Deborra-Lee Furness feel about her husband's steamy scenes with English bombshell Kate Beckinsale in his latest film 'Van Helsing'?

"My wife's done about 30 movies and she says to me she's been naked up [against] more shower walls than I've actually been in movies. There's some things we don't talk about and we just say that's part of the job," The Herald Sun quoted Jackman as saying.

"But there is a pact that each can enjoy one movie sex scene in their lives. I'm still reserving mine, I don't even know who it is," Jackman says. Hers is with Antonio Banderas. She hasn't done it yet," he added laughingly.

Jackman is famous for his jovial remarks and his down to earth attitude. "The fact that they're coming out together is just a pure coincidence, but it's quite a fun coincidence for me," said the 40-year-old star.

Jackman stars as Gabriel van Helsing, a kind of holy hitman dispatched by a Vatican sect to confront Dracula and save the beautiful Anna Valerious played by Beckinsale.

The film is directed by Stephen Sommers of 'The Mummy' fame. It is a rip-roaring rollick through 19th-century Transylvania replete with tremendous special effects, numerous hair-raising moments and plenty of humour.

The movie promises to be a huge hit, not only for Jackman but also for his fellow Australians Richard Roxburgh, who plays Dracula, and David Wenham, who plays Van Helsing's sidekick, Carl. (ANI)

Mark Hoppus - Married to Skye Everly since December 2000, 1 child. In case you don't know, Mark Hoppus in co-lead vocalist in the band Blink 182. Just watch some of his videos! Songs about sex, sex scenes within the video's, a lot of nudity, and a lot of midgets (just wanted to add that).

Sting - Married to Trudie Styler since August of 1982, 6 kids (2 with ex-wife). Plenty of sex in his video's...the poor kids have to know that their parents have marathon sex though...

Madonna - Married to Guy Richie (has sex scenes in his own right) since December 2000, 1 child. Do I really need to say anything?

Brad Pitt - Married to Jennifer Aniston (also has a couple love scenes of her own) since April of 2000, 1 child.

Jon Travolta - Married to Kelly Preston since December of 1991, 2 Children. He has some scenes doesn't he?

Cindy Crawford - Married to Rande Gerber since May 1998, 2 children. Playboy...

Anne Heche - Married to Coleman Laffon since September or 2001, 1 child. Outwardly known to the public for her bi-sexuality. Partner of Ellen Degeneres for 3 1/2 years.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-20-2004, 07:56 PM:
 

quote: Rachel Gilardi

---

In one scene, McGregor beats co-star Emily Mortimer on the bottom and then has sex.

---

Can you imagine what mental damage it will do to innumerable young boys when they find out Obi-wan Kenobi is a woman beater and rapist?
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-21-2004, 09:41 AM:
 
Out of your list, Rachel, most have only been married for less than 5 years. Having children isn't evidence of a strong marriage. I'll be willing to remain calm and take another look at the people on your list 10 years from now.

Meanwhile, the Internet Movie Database news just ran a brief story this morning about Birth which said pretty-much the same things quoted at the beginning of this thread, but it added that the budget on this movie was $54 million. Let's see. Eyes Wide Shut had a budget of $65 million and the final gross was just short of $57 million. So, I wonder if there will be similar box office results this time. Perhaps the executives at New Line Cinema will insist that this movie gets released with an R rating instead of NC-17... so that some kids can use their R-card and see it without their parents.

And you might be saying that I'm just going off-topic by bringing up some of these points. But really, to me, if our culture is going to conclude that the 1980s were all about greed and that greed came back to bite us in the 1990s, then I'm going to conclude that the 1990s were a cultural celebration of "compartmentalization" and the people who were good at it. I've come to reject the idea that compartmentalization is a good thing. To me, each aspect of what a person is and what he/she does relates to everything else about that individual. As far as I'm concerned, the compartmentalization of the 1990s (and before) is coming back to bite people now. Bill Clinton's new book is getting negative reviews. Martha Stewart might go to jail. Michael Jackson's musical talent won't save him this time. Terrorism has forced us to examine U.S. policies of the past and realize that our country wasn't very good at compartmentalization. And O.J. Simpson continues to search for "the real killers" in golf courses across the southern U.S. and Mexico... but most of us find him nothing but creepy.

What does this have to do with Nicole Kidman's life/career or a 10-year-old who was used by adults who don't care how these experiences will affect the kid in the future? Time will tell. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm nuts. But I'm willing to wait and see.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-21-2004, 11:36 AM:
 
Shall we make plans to revisit this discussion in 10 to 15 years? Can I see a show of hands of those who agree with me that the young man in question will look back on his make-believe bathtub frolic with one of the most celebrated and beautiful actresses of the time as a cherished memory?

That of course presumes that a bunch of shrinks and therapists don't pile on to pound it into his head that he was used and abused and his own opinion simply doesn't matter.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-21-2004, 03:42 PM:
 
<hand raised>

steve, you are as usual the voice of reason.

carl
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-21-2004, 04:27 PM:
 
While I don't share Greg's concern to the same extent ( i don't think this kid will be traumatized by any means), my concern is more about the removal of one layer of inhibition way too early in this kid's life. You can say all you want this is acting, but the fact is you got a 10 year old kid nearly naked in a bathtub kissing a buck naked Kidman. That is reality, not acting. There are no clever edits to make it look like its real. This kid is not going to have to go through the stages of life where he is curious about something. I do understand this process barely exists anyway in hollywood kids. Still, he has already gotten to second base with a grown naked woman at 10 and the only thing left to do is intercourse. I think now he is prone to doing sexual stuff at a higher level with his peers than he normally would because of this experience. I mean, I already hear preteens make crude comments about passing girls at theaters. That's because they are inundated with sexual stuff all around, that this is normal to them. Let me reiterate. I am pretty libertarian and believe in no limits for adults. I am also dont look at underage issues as black and white. I personally believed that the 12 or 13 year old kid in the Mary Kay Leteournoe case knew what he was doing and played a big role in seducing that lady.

But all the same, 10 is 10 to me. a preteen.If the director insisted on casting a 10 year old to play a 10 year old , fine even if it is not uncommon in hollywood movies to cast a younger looking older actor for such roles. Still this is the type of scene that very easily could have been done without the actors actually being the tub together naked. Look at lolita. Swain was much older and they used body doubles in the bedroom scenes. She also was older than her character which was older than this kid in Birth.

Anyway, we will see how this movie turns out. For the actors sake, I hope this movie turns out to be intellectually great stuff. Otherwise, it will just be one pretentious attempt at art that will only serve to please those of us wanting to imagine what it would be like to us if we got lucky with a woman at 10.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-22-2004, 12:58 AM:
 
Actually, this is not the first time this boy has been next to a buck naked woman. Last I checked, his mom was probably buck naked during childbirth, and he probably breast fed. Chances are, he gets naked from time to time too.

The human body is a very beautiful thing. Unless of course you are talking about Phil. Then I would have to say keep your clothes on.

It is religeous hoopla and fear that keeps our clothes on, and in phil's case, a court order.

Should it have been reversed and it was a 10 year old girl in the tub with tom cruise, then we label him a pedophile, but the opposite is true in this case, because even at 10, boys are definately going to strip for girls. But the reverse is not so true.

It's a double standard, and the boy will not be scarred. If I had been ten and had the opportunity to get buffed by a hot redhead, damn I would have been there. Why? Because I was a 10 year old boy! Girls stop bieng yukky at about 7 or 8.

Will he be warped and start thinking of sex? You mean he isn't already? Come on? Let's get real and stop getting religeous! The kid has it on his brain already, exposing him to a film set where nothing is going to happen is NOT going to make him a sex feind, nor will it turn him into bob crane (saw auto focus).

I think it's harmless, and somewhat provacative. Would I allow my ten year old boy naked with nicole kidman on a movie set. Yes. Am I insane. No. It is better than the time he sent hate mail to a girl he never met because he wanted to know what it would do. Yea, I would rather have him sending hate mail then spending time with naked women.

Yep, thats my opinion.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-22-2004, 02:07 AM:
 
Dave has a few good points. The most important question is, is the boy forced to do whatever he does? He probably doesn`t understand everything about sex yet, although if I remember correctly, at that age boys are already somehow attracted to girls. Maybe he sees it as some form of cuddling.
But like I said, the most important thing is whether or not he is forced to do whatever they do.
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-22-2004, 07:34 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I'll be willing to remain calm and take another look at the people on your list 10 years from now.

---

quote: Rachel Gilardi

---

Take this any way you want...

---

Those names above were completely off the top of my head. I don't know too much about actors 'real lives' so I'm sure there are many more married for a lasting relationship. I'm not really interested in the actors too much, I just watch the movies... I think thats a pretty good list considering I just thought of the people myself...

Anyway, if you're comparing Hollywood marriages with one of the couple being in a sex scene compared to one of them not being in a sex scene, chances are there marriage won't last very long anyway. Thats just Hollywood - actually, that's just life now...
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-30-2004, 10:57 PM:
 
23 Year Old Hot Teacher does her 14 year old student

quote:

---

Meet Debra Lafave. The 23-year-old Florida teacher is facing a host of felony charges for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old male student. According to investigators, Lafave met the boy at Greco Middle School--where she taught reading--and had sex with him in her classroom, Isuzu SUV, and Tampa-area home. A probable cause affidavit prepared by the Marion County Sheriff's Office details Lafave's alleged involvement with the boy, who was interviewed by cops (as was his cousin, who was present for two of the auto encounters). According to the affidavit--portions of which were redacted by investigators--Lafave told the boy that she was "turned on by the fact that having sexual relations with him was not allowed." Since the incidents occurred in different jurisdictions, Lafave has been named in two separate criminal complaints.

---