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)