A charismatic leader and a high-spirited student group are on holiday in Italy. The surreal adventures of these friends are a free-flowing, four-part "multi-sensual symphony," bereft of traditional story line. One national critic described the boys' anarchic revelry as a "dream-like descent from civilization into the chaos reminiscent of Lord of the Flies."
An interesting movie made back in the late 60s/early 70s (late 1966 to early 1973) that depicts a friendly group of eight boys; children and teens (aged around ten to nineteen years old) who enjoy going around naked. "The Genesis Children" has quite an enjoyable and innocent concept but it could be a lot better.
I have four views I want to express in regards to the flick as well as phenomena in general that aren't exactly popular but I'll say what I will regardless of what other people say. May I preface that I am no way, shape or form trying to promote sexual deviancy. In fact, I am promoting the exact opposite. So please understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree.
This movie should not be rated "X". It shouldn't be rated at all. I believe it should and can be watched by people of all ages, including babies and children. Just because it contains nudity and display of male genitals and buttocks throughout doesn't mean it's pornography. It is innocent nudism, not porn.
Visual works that depict nude children (aged 12 years or younger) are not child pornography. Children are asexual in the mind until puberty, just like I was at that age. Children and child nudity is only sexual in the mind of pedophiles. There is no place for pedophilia on this earth. "The Genesis Children" also depicts teen boys (aged 13 to 19 years), which is not sexual either. Teen boys are young men; young adults. They have adult bodies and voices; muscular bodies and big penises and scrota and low, deep voices. I am sick of the ridiculous and unreasonable gatekeeping: "if the nude actors are under 18, it is child pornography." No, it ain't. Teens are not children, not physically anyway; ditto, they have adult bodies and voices already and their nude bodies and uncovered genitalia should not be censored, shamed and age-restricted to the arbitrary number of 18 years old as long as they don't behave sexually. That's when it is child pornography, legally speaking. Teens are children (I prefer the term "minors") by law, not by their physical maturity.
Genitals are not inherently sexual, as in pornographic. They should not be seen as such. Certainly genitals always can be sexual, they are so in some cases, but usually they are non-sexual. They are just parts of our bodies, for goodness sake. It totally depends of the context and intent. It's all in the mind at the end of the day. Nudity and genitals should and can be perceived as good, clean, pure, non-sexual and innocent, most of the time.
Being gay is not inherently sexual, as in pornographic, either. It should not be seen as such, it should not be age-restricted and should not be dismissed as merely a sexual orientation. Certainly, being gay always can be sexual, but so can be being straight, or lesbian. Being gay is often a sexual thing, but it doesn't have to be. I believe that being gay, lesbian or straight should and can be totally non-sexual; just friendly or platonic! Being gay is a choice for me because I like therefore choose boys and men, not in a sexual way though. Being gay, to me, is usually non-sexual. Same goes with being straight or lesbian. It totally depends on the context and intent. For example, as shown in "The Genesis Children", any friendship between boys and/or men, no matter how old they are, is gay, clothed or naked. Nudism improves friendship, in my opinion, because we can see and deal with each others' wonderful bodies and genitalia in a totally non-sexual way. Age is just a number. Gay friendship is great, even for babies and children. But unfortunately, nudist intergenerational gay friendships, would be seen as pedophilia in the mainstream textile world and the adult would be rebuked and even put in jail for doing absolutely nothing wrong to the child or minor in any way. I feel society is too quick to judge.
Anyway, this concludes my review of this flick as well as my opinions about nudity, genitals and being gay, which to me are usually non-sexual as they should be. It is basically gay nudist friendship on film, which is a good thing. I wish more of it could exist in this world.
