For a Lost Soldier (1992), awesome man to boy love romance (set in a very toxic topic)

Giving twelve year olds what they want is seldom giving twelve year olds what is best for them.

[R1] true, maybe I would have become a sex maniac with daddy issues, like my ex lol

on 2nd thought, that is like 80% of gays (if you take the hookup apps as a reference)...... hmmhhh

Um, this is sick

[R1] so it's better for a 12 year old to be sucking off his peers at school, whilst simultaneously being bullied by the same boys, versus experiencing your first sexual encounter with an older peer that genuinely likes and respects you?

I really think I would've benefited from a relationship with an older man during my early teens, and often fantasized about it at the time.

R5 How about no dicksucking at 12???

Bah! No chicken hawks.

[R7] guess you were a little late with your puberty...... and nowadays puberty even starts earlier

[R7] how about "straight" kids not getting their dicks sucked at 12?

I watched this at the time. It was shown on Channel 4 in the UK. The actor playing the older soldier was pretty hot.

[R11] I know! The kid was quite ugly though, and a bad actor :/

An older peer who genuinly "likes and respects" a 12 year old CHILD ( yes 12 year olds are children R5) would never have sexual relations with said child. Everything else is just wrong and sick. And I say that as someone who as a 12 year old got more than enough unwanted attention by creepy older men.

🚨🚨🚨 Not-even-stealth pedo thread 🚨🚨🚨

I am not trying to promote this behaviour, what I am trying to trigger is a discussion. As indicated above, I indeed do know a lot of my peers that have done this. I myself had fantasized about it, but was way too scared to follow through.

On the other hand the age difference doesn't need to be that massive in order to get into legal issues.

The movie depicts the soldier in his early twenties. But we should also discuss 14 year olds having relationships with 18 year olds, etc.

Older peer doesn't necessarily equal "old", but "older", where is the threshold? The same could be said for a 70 year old having a relationship with a 20 year old?

R14 this kind of attitude is exactly the reason why kids do not talk about this with their parent. Shutting a discussion down with a slap, doesn't make the problem go away. Kinda reminds me of the QAnon's sticking their heads into the sand, avoiding any dialogue.

It's not really a paedo film. There's a lot going on in it. Both the soldier and the kid are lonely and odd and it's more about them 'finding each other'. The kid loves the soldier for the rest of his life. While it's obviously wrong for an adult to have sex with a child, no matter how romantic their relationship, this isn't some paedophilic porno.

Isn't it also a true story?

The user review has got quite a good point:

"For a Lost Soldier gave me much to think about and is likely to provoke much thought in the intelligent viewer"

No 20 year old would have a genuine relationship with a 70 year old unless money is involved. Also 20 year olds are ADULTS and there is a huge difference between fantasy and reality. R15

Who got OP grayed out?

There is another thread on this

R19 20 year olds are adults lol so they should be able to drink alcohol?

It seems reasonable that a 14 yo and 20 yo could have a genuine relationship.

It is based on a book. I checked some of the movie reviews. Interestingly they acknowledge the explosive topic, but focus their criticism on the bad interpretation of the book. I guess the people slamming this movie just haven't seen it and like to barf on something they have no knowledge of.... Just like QAnon.

It’s telling and idiotic that OP’s post was thru-lined by knee-jerk dolts. The movie is a very entertaining minor masterpiece that probably could not be made at moment.

It’s based on a Dutch autobiography, which I haven’t read. Apparantly the book states the aftermath of the affair was more traumatic in its impact.

Interestingly, this month a new biography of author Norman Douglas was published — a notorious boylover — and not of adolescents like the boy in For A Lost Soldier either. Very problematically, Norman’s boys — as their surviving letters indicate — absolutely adored him. He seems to have been a good mentor. But, as the new bio seeks to negotiate, it’s an incredibly fraught issue, given that for every good mentor, there’s a selfish creep out there that’s the stuff of parental nightmares.

The book is an autobiography, so it's true.

Sure why not? R22

R27 you are missing the point.....

THIS IS WHY THEY HATE US!

Now I get the title. "For a Lost Soldier" appears to be a love letter to his first love.

R29 THEY = the truth, US = QAnon?

What's the problem?

[quote]It's not really a paedo film. There's a lot going on in it. Both the soldier and the kid are lonely and odd and it's more about them 'finding each other'. The kid loves the soldier for the rest of his life. While it's obviously wrong for an adult to have sex with a child, no matter how romantic their relationship, this isn't some paedophilic porno.

It's got a sex scene with a little boy having anal sex with a grown man. The character was 12, the actor looked 10. It's gross. Period.

We won't even get into having an actor that young performing a scene like that.

I think this is showcases once again the schizophrenic US approach to anything that involves sex. Europeans are much more reflective, hence this movie could never have been produced across the pond.

R33 = homophobic rad fem.

I hope the moderators track your IP addresses and report some of you to police

R33 I am not sure if I saw a censored version. I recall the "sex scene" as him being on top of him and telling him that he loves him. Literally 5 seconds, only close up shut of heads and torsos (actually you literally see nothing). I must admit that these 5 seconds were uncomfortable to watch, maybe they could have left it out (I can imagine though, that the book could be more graphic, as it is an autobiography).

One point to be made, the autobiography is done via the boy, not the "alleged predator".

So all of the haters are calling the "victim" a "pedo".....

R36 (facepalm)...... The Police would also need to jail IMDB, New York Times, LA Times, Rottentomatoes and all of the big reviewers that have watched it.... Please think before you speak (that is, if your brain has the capacity for that, which it quite clearly does not)

Context is everything. The movie is based on a memoir.

Van Dantzig was born in Amsterdam, where his father, Murk van Dantzig, worked in a Fokker aircraft factory. His parents held strongly leftwing views, espousing Marxism, advocating pacifism, and promoting Esperanto.[2] He was six years old when the German army defeated Dutch forces in the Battle of the Netherlands in May 1940 and occupied the country at the beginning of World War II. During the occupation of his homeland, young Rudi was sent to stay in a foster home in Friesland, where conditions were safer than in the city. During liberation of the Netherlands in May 1945, he met Walter Cook, a young soldier in the First Canadian Army, which was largely responsible for the defeat of German forces in Holland. His friendship and love affair with this soldier, who was lost to him when he was suddenly transferred away, provided the basis for his prizewinning novel Voor een Verloren Soldaat (For a Lost Soldier), published in the Netherlands in 1986 and later filmed and translated into English.[3]

E36, it's mostly just two posters. Block and he shall see.

Ignorant people don't understand context, even if you would slice it up "a mise bouche" sized.... Oh wait, those same people won't even understand that....

Netflix streamed it....

FBI, please raid NY and Chicago Public Libraries, it's available for rent!!!!!!!

In the 90s many subjects that were taboo before were treated with more "open mind" by movies and television mostly, some aged better like gay marriage or trans rights. To be open minded about age difference, specially when one is clearly not an adult, aged like milk. Now is just called pedophilia any other euphemism is unnecessary.

R44 Not sure in which reality you grew up, Games of Thrones, Spartacus, Outlander (the list goes on) definitely would never have been shown in such vulgar nudity and violence (if you haven't seen Spartacus, there is quite some glorified rape going on there...)

R43 add Amazon to the list, they had the DVD lol

He was also a fabulously successful choreographer and friend of Nureyev. This is his life story. Deal with it.

FYI for the pedo-freakouts. Remember that there was no such thing as "Adult Consensual Relationships". There was no distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. Anything homo was not just illicit but mostly unspeakable. There was no social norm that said it's ok for adults. I remember looking for information in the early 70's in the medical and psychology journals and not a single source stated that a homosexual could have a normal life. We were doomed by science, religion, families and friends. Imagine the loneliness and desperation that people must have felt at the time.

If you would have done a survey in my neighborhood in 1975 New Jersey about what people knew about homosexuality the the top 5 answers would have been; 1. Sick. 2. Wrong. 3. Should be killed. 4. Going to hell. 5. Gross.

OP I am sorry to see that a few idiots are trying to trash the conversation. On the other hand I think you got your answer. Seems that there is still a path ahead of us (in terms of being able to freely discuss -- not act on -- such a sensitive topic) :(

If anyone is genuinely interested, here is the link for the book (free online readable version). All outlets carry it, so they should also be arrested if this material is as illegal as some folks (who clearly haven't read it) are trying to paint it.

It's nice when gay men can discuss things without women trying to censor us.

This thread reminds me of a saying:

"Stupid people talk about people, average people talk about events, Intelligent people talk about ideas"

Decades, if not centuries old and still true.

R51 It was catapulted by Eleanor Roosevelt, in different words:

"Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People"

The origin is debatable (check the link)

R51 You could apply that to the entire Datalounge.

R53 Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc., the World

when you run out of facts and the truth, deflect on to one talking point and post it in CAPITAL LETTERS (= shout, like Fox News and the Republicans constantly do)

"When they go low, we go high"

As others have stated it's based on an autobiography. After the movie came out the author/writer of the book was interviewed and he said the director romanticized the relationship. He said the truth was the soldier dragged him into a barn and raped him. The boy never saw the soldier again and there was nothing romantic or loving about it.

That's not correct. The Canadian soldier did rape him in barn. And Van Danzig was so shocked he was ill in bed. But he then sought out the soldier, continued to see him every day, and a relationship of sorts developed, until the Canadians upruptly left. Danzig said in interview: "the next morning I went to see him again. It was attraction and repulsion at the same time ... I started to like him more and more. I also can't say he did anything unkind, except turn my life upside down." So, as in most movie adaptions, the truth was more nuanced, and messy, but more psychologically interesting. And very European.

I read the book, it is a quick read (thx for sharing the link). the book is more uncomfortable to read than the movie, as it is quite graphic in regards to the authors phantasies. before the (above) depicted rape, the author references to several sexual phantasies other than the Canadian soldier. Memories will always remain vague, nevertheless the movie doesn't do much credit towards the book. Especially in regards of the fear (and hunger -- food wise) of being a child in world war 2.

Call Me By Your Name!

The Blonde One