Talk:Queen of Hearts (2019 film)

Just in case there is any doubt about the Danish statutes on statutory rape:

What is the Denmark Age of Consent? The Age of Consent in Denmark is 15 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 14 or younger in Denmark are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.

Denmark statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 15. The age of consent rises to age 18 when the offender is an adopted parent, step parent, foster parent, teacher, or anybody whom the minor was entrusted to for education or upbringing.

Denmark has one territories that have their own local age of consent laws. These territories are listed in the following table: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:986:8001:D134:C83C:F3EF:FCAD:8457 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot Changes

I am opening a discussion on the changes made by one anonymous editor who strictly is citing Danish law and has changed a majority of the plot to say “statutory rape” but no where in any listing of this movie does that come up. I consider this WP:POV. This is about a film, not the laws of any particular country, state, region, etc. I have reverted the edits and pointed out to discuss here without reverting.

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC

I'll be glad to discuss this in the context of the widespread socio-political-professional denial of female sex offenders as shown in the many academic resources, the most comprehensive of which is Miriam Denov's Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A CULTURE OF DENIAL. It is customary for professionals of all kinds to deny and apologize for female sexual predators using same kinds of language/double standards that editor Galedalia seems to prefer above. Popular feature films that portray female-male statutory rape often romanticize and mischaracterize female-male statutory rape in ways that would never be tolerated were it a dirty older man rather than a filthy older woman who was the statutory rapist. Denov's research clearly shows this cultural and professional denial/double standard with lots of anecdotes from a variety of professions. So do other researchers on female sex offenders, such as UCLA's Lara Stemple, journalist Phillip Cook, researcher Michelle Elliot, and sexologist Hani Miletksi to name a few.

To correct the blatant rape apologetism in the original edit, I accurately cited Danish law to prove that the movies' plot is one that portrays a stepmother in a childrearing role repeating statutory raping her stepson. Regardless of how the filmmakers would LIKE to have their film's plot portrayed, the film clearly depicts repeated statutory rapes by a female stepmother, who is ironically portrayed as rape prosecutor herself. Citing Danish law and calling statutory rape 'statutory rape rather than a 'relationship' or an 'affair' is about portraying the plot of a film accurately based on the law of the land in which is was made and based on the nation in which it was set. This film (like films on murder or any other crime) portrays a serial statutory rapist in a stepmother role who denies her crime and victim-blames her victim. While the listings of the film are ALSO are full of the usual rape denial/apolologism, that does not change the FACT that the central plot of the film itself is one of repeated statutory rapes by a stepmother on her son and by a powerful older statutory rapist who (quite typically) denies her own crime and attacks the credibility of her younger and far less powerful victim.

This IS about a film. It is about telling the TRUTH about a film whose criminal plot is being portrayed falsely and romantically in the listings. That truth is based on the LOGIC, a single standard for male and female statutory rapists, and the law of the land in which the serial sex crimes are set. It is NOT POV to accurately portray a film whose central plot portrays serial statutory rape as a film about statutory rape. In fact, the opposite is true. To romanticize, to deny and to apologize for female-male statutory rapists is all about POV...and poisonous but all too common POV of view that helps female rapists rape with impunity (as shown in the film) and that silences their victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

First off please sign your comments with adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Secondly, start your comments with one more colon (:) than the last comments made as this allows proper indentation. Thirdly, all the edits you have made have introduced grammar, spelling, and un-needed code into the page. Now as far as all of the content you are adding I am not debating what it is called but I’m telling you by adding all of the law and citing it into the article is undue weight and is not needed. The plot is the plot and it mentions rape and sexual assault in this article. Possibly added by you. I can find no verifiable source that states the plot is indeed statutory rape, incest, rape, sexual assault, etc. These are all things you have entered into the article which is a POV. This is, again, a work of fiction and the laws of one jurisdiction do not apply to a work of fiction. If this was a biography of any-type, that would be a different story. I’m going to ask you once again to not deface the article with your POV or add the laws or change the plot to meet your view of what you see it as, as the official plot of the fictional work was fine with the way in which it was prior to you adding to it. I encourage you to read the following: WP:POV, WP:MOS, WP:RSUW. Please stop reverting the edits until the discussion is complete or you will receive an edit warring notice which can lead to banning you from Wikipedia.

Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit war right now by repeatedly reverting my edits without any real basis. You are defacing the article with your own rape apologist POV that ignores the copious academic research on female rape apologetics and that fictionalicises a fictional film plot. Please stop falsely accusing ME starting an edit war when you are are already waring with me by reverting my corrections of rape apologism and defacing the article to reflect rape apologeticism without any real basis and before you have completed a discussion with me.

The facts are as follows:

a) the primary male character is portrayed as a minor.

b) the woman who has sex with him is portrayed as his much older stepmother in a cohabiting childrearing role

c) The film has a Danish setting

d) Danish law clearly spells out that such a 'sexual relationship' is in fact statutory rape by the stepmother.

e) Therefore the film is clearly a DANISH sex crime drama with respect to the country it is set in...just as Breath is in Australia.

Note:

1) You are blatantly straw manning me by stating that I'm bringing the law into the article which I clearly did not do. Please stop acting in terribly bad faith by putting your falsehoods into my mouth. (I did refer to the relevant Danish law in the talk page so that editors could understand why I corrected the blatant rape apologetism in the original edits, but that is not the same as bringing the law into the article itself). Please stop falsely accusing me citing the law in the article (I did no such thing) and then falsely accusing me of adding undue weight based on your own false accusation. Please stop playing bad faith straw manning aggression to further your own edit war.

2) You are straw manning me as part of your own edit war by bringing in the term 'incest' which I made no mention of. Please begin to act in good faith and stop putting your words in my mouth to edit war with me at my expense.

3) I/we need no verifiable source that shows that the events depicted in the fiction film are statutory rape because 1) the rapee is portrayed as a minor in the film 2) the rapist is portrayed as his co-habiting stepmother in the film.

4) Danish law clearly shows that sex by a stepmother on her minor stepson clearly is statutory rape. The law of the jurisdiction is which a fictional film is SET at the time it is set, absolutely are relevant when depicting the content of a fictional (or non-fictional) plot.

5) The fact that this film is fiction has nothing to do with how that fiction is factually and accurately portrayed. To portray the fiction factually and accurately, using law of the land in which the fiction is set during the time period it was set is a far more objective and accurate than is using an 'official' (whatever that means) or popular rape apologetism fantasy. Blatant rape apologism simply defaces WP by portraying a false POV fantasy about the fictional plot.

6) There is absolutely no good reason to distinguish between how one depicts a fictional crime from a real crime. Both are crimes. A non-fictional crime documentary and a fictional crime drama share the same thing, the crime(s) in question. Please stop pushing you rape apologist POV by falsely implying that one cannot or should not correctly and accurately call a fictional crime a crime just because it happens to be fictional.

7) I'm going to ask you to stop your edit war by pejoratively accusing me of 'defacing' an article about a sex crime drama that was originally full of blatant rape apologetism by simply correctly editing that article to reflect the criminal realities that the fictional film itself depicts with the context of the law in force in the setting and during the time period the film depect. While I consider your POV deeply disgusting and utterly defacing, I'm didn't and I'm not going to club you over the head with my own PRIVATE POV to engage in an edit war with you. I expect you stop throwing wild public accusations around to club me over the head with AS YOU imply that I'm the one interested in an edit war with you.s

8) The 'official' depiction of the plots involving female-male sex crimes almost always depict them in romantic rape denial language ('affair', 'love story', 'relationship') Given that copious academic research clearly calls out the official depiction as false, loaded with double standards, and encouraging to female rapistis, and dangerous to the survivors of same, it is important that the blatantly false and self-serving 'official' depiction be correctly with research based on the logic, the law, and the data. Please stop pushing some mysterious 'official' POV when that POV is blatantly baseless and obviously false.

9) Please stop reverting my undo's until the discusion is complete or you will recieve and edit warring notice that may result in your banning from wikipedia.

10) Please stop more bad faith edit war behaviors above and bring logical good faith to the discussion. You'll note that I clearly referenced the law of the land in which the film was set at the time it was set WHEN I corrected the blatant rape apologism POV in the original article. I did that to demonstrate my good faith and my command of the context and content of this particular topic. Please stop playing bad faith edit wars by accusing me of POV when you yourself seem to be strongly attached to the common rape apologetics POV that is the norm almost everywhere and that has been called out by many credible academics and journalists.

I'm going to undo your reverts because I did demonstrate good faith by referring you to DANISH law and the reality of precisely what sex crime the fictional film depicted. Please stop reverting my edits unless and until you are willing to behave with good faith...and offer me good solid logical reasons why rape apologetism should be included in the article as the 'official' story line about a fictional drama involving DANISH sex crimes. 2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't get to put our personal points of view into Wikipedia articles. If you have sources for referring to these activities as "sex crimes", "statutory rape" and such -- source for this movie being referred to in this fashion -- incorporate them into the article. It should be easy if it's so obvious and credible. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)