MovieChat Forums > Beat (2000) Discussion > How Sexually Explicit?

How Sexually Explicit?

How sexually explicit is this movie? I mean, I know it involves some love scenes but is it very graphic?

I also understand that William S. Burroughs had a thing for little boys (at least such has been told to me by a friend who read one of his books, Naked Lunch, I beleive), so is there pedophilia involved?



its not sexually explicit at all! just yr average love scene, everything's just alluded to ! :)

(& twasn't a thing for little boys, twas just homosexuality. so if you've a problem seeing two dudes kiss, then you might be better off not seeing this!)



Ah, good good. Then surely I can convince my mother to let me see it.

She knows what I've seen before.

And I have no problem with homosexuality. So all is well.

The little boys thing was just what my brother said his friend said who read the books. He said he talked about little boys a lot. *shrugs* Ah, well, I just need to know about the movie now.

And I thank you profusely for replying. It's taken months, and you're the only person to reply. *jumps and claps*

In the time I've been waiting for replies I've been doing a bit of research. Now I know who the characters are, though, so that's good! *goes back to reading The Dharma Bums*


Only seeing this post now, so did you get to see this movie?

I loved it, but just to clear up the whole little boys thing...
Burroughs was homosexual, and kinda bisexual, and obsessed with any and all forms of violent, perverted sex. I think that this had more to do with his Beat- personality of defying the social norm at all costs and that he wrote "The Naked Lunch" while he was on a constant drug high for fifteen years, woke up and discovered that he had written that monster of a book. The chapters in the book are not even in order as there was no specific order. This novel was shocking, but I still found it intriguing enough to finish. One of the more gruesome experiences of my life!


He did NOT have a thing for little boys. Young men yes... He was Gay, not a paedophile...


Whether or not he practiced it in real life, his work does make regular mention of an attraction to young boys.

"Illusion, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money...or cocaine!"


He's using "Boy" in the British sense, for "Youth" or "young man", not a male child...



I wouldn't say "little boys", but youths, who were like about 18 years old (so called "twinks" in gay slang). If anything than he would fit into the "ephebophile category", but not really into the pedophile one. Here's a photo of him and Kiki (who also appears in his stories):


Oh man, so much pedophilia. It's so awesome. I rubbed one out to all the pedo scenes like 5 times each. Wtf kind of a question is that ya douche bag?? Just watch the dam movie. Instead of asking if there is stuff in it to get you off first. Disguised as mild curiousity. We know you wanna see those things ya sicko.


Maybe he was asking because he wanted to *avoid* graphic/pedo scenes.