Talk:Diary of a Lost Girl

Synopsis
synopsis doesn't quite match the german one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.198.210.69 (talk • contribs).
 * Please feel free to edit the article. Unfortunately I had only seen the movie once, and since I do not know german, I can't say whether that one is more accurate than this one. -- ReyBrujo 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

dude, Thymian was not seduced by Meinert. She fainted in his arms while talking about how alone she felt and Meinert carried her up to her room and raped her while she was still unconscious. there was absolutely no consent involved. Please edit the synopsis to reflect this. 124.169.237.242 (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC) IP: 124.169.237.242


 * The synopsis has changed back and forth several times in the past between "raped" and "seduced". The fact is that the film is ambiguous. Was she out cold, or was she in a state of nervous exhaustion and did she accept his "loving"? Either interpretation is possible. But Thymian never says "he raped me", and the intertitles never use the word. IMHO it is better not to state it as a categorical fact. Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

um. she doesn't open her eyes from when she collapses into his arms to when he lunges at her at the end of the scene. she's limp. when he kisses her, she doesn't even kiss back! she doesn't even jump when the wine glass crashes off the table, even though she can't see what's happening. if she can't see, and she isn't moving, how on earth can anyone interpret that as "accepting his loving"? even if, supposing, she wasn't out cold, if she is honestly so exhausted that she can't even lift her head, open her eyes, of say a word, how on earth is she going to have the strength to say no to this guy's sexual advances? he's like 7 feet tall! and later she says that she doesn't love him in the very next scene! and i think the fact that thymian never says "he raped me" is probably more of a product of her character, and the way the movie shows its drama, and also of the times. the scene faded out after the bedroom scene because she was being raped. even if you wanted to use the word "seduced", it just doesn't fit. seduction involves two people with their faculties about them. there is absolutely no evidence that there was any consent along the way (retrospective consent doesn't bar it from being rape, btw, supposing you wanted to argue for that) and there is so much more evidence that she just didn't have the capacity to prevent herself from sexual intercourse at the time. the idea that she woke up properly at some point, consented, and got pregnant (which still wouldn't bar it from being rape before she woke up, or coercion after she woke up), is just completely absurd and makes no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.237.242 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

also, one more thing! if you're telling me we shouldn't categorise the scene being a rape scene as a fact, even though all the signs point to it being rape, why on earth are you sticking with seduction as a categorical fact on the page, even though there is no sign that points to seduction? why pick seduction over rape? it's completely misleading! you could at least state a section about this ambiguity if you wanted to, but if you're going to include the possibility of seduction, you have to include the greater likelihood of rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.237.242 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation (bold in original). Find a reliable, published source that says it was rape, not seduction, and you can change it. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

okay. here you go. ^.^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-gladysz/a-lost-girl-a-fake-diary-_b_694263.html (or do i have to edit the article as well?). just Ctrl+F "rape". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.237.242 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, that relates to the book, not the film. Please click on my reference where you will see a proper published source i.e. an academic book which says "seduced". Here is the link, to save you going back to the article. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that it was a seduction, since she shows no signs of being traumatized the next day. However, now that I think about it, both seduction and rape are WP:OR. The viewer is not shown what happened. Therefore I've changed the wording to "takes advantage of". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand OR. OR is anything that does not appear in reliable, published sources. The fact in question here - that she was seduced - is stated in Marked Women: Prostitutes and Prostitution in the Cinema, by Russell Campbell: "Thymian, upset, is seduced by Hennings sleazy assistant, Meinert." Therefore it fulfils WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. "Takes advantage of", unfortunately, doesn't. Scolaire (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On reflection, that was harsh. The quote can reasonably be paraphrased as "Meinert takes advantage of her". Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Expansion
Since its portrayal of rape was considered graphic for its time it should be noted, also some information on the film's production and reception would be nice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)