Cuties - Netflix film causes uproar and causes people to cancel accounts

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

4 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

Have you seen the movie? It’s fine to criticize of course. But to be clear, the sexualized dance number is not accepted or embraced in the movie. It is not promoted; the character in the movie that choreographed the number, is booed. 

It. does. not. matter. They still spent a LOT of money and a LOT of time to choreograph and perfect those scenes with actual human girls! It's gross!

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by CautiouslyOptimistic

[Veronica73]

So you haven’t seen the movie?

[Ruby_Red]

I have seen the movie, and it’s (somewhat) realistic in a rather disturbing way. Eg.: I am sure many parents struggle with tweens who overuse Tiktok and the tweens think they’re cool, while in reality they go through puberty, have big emotions, and put it all out there in public, which makes them potential victims of being ridiculed, or even worse, sexually or otherwise exploited. I’m neither a fan of tiktok nor of the movie cuties. I did like how it ended though. Nice, uplifting closing scene.

BUT yes the movie will be used by millions of horny guys to jerk off to elementary school kids. Not publishing the movie won’t keep horny guys from jerking off to minors, I admit that, but was the movie necessary? Probably not. I’ve seen better. I’ve seen better on the particular subject even. It didn’t need to be half naked, snotty 11 year olds dancing like strippers, to be honest. But I guess it’s considered art. Heck - bullfighting in Pamplona is considered art. You can exploit whatever you like, if you label it art. 
 

What I’m saying is that I understand what the movie is trying to convey - but I'm assuming that the contents that were used here were not necessary, and were merely or mostly used in order to sell it better. Sex sells ...... and unfortunately that includes minors now. The world is a rough place. And the younger you are when you understand that, the better. 
 

in terms of porn - Did we need one more of these “products”? I believe not 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Ruby_Red

[Mrin]

I think it is pointless to get so worked up over something like this unless you're willing to investigate it and speak to it's "badness," with first hand knowledge. Otherwise, you're just screaming about the boogieman. Just my two cents. 

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

First hand knowledge? 

12 minutes ago, Mrin said:

I think it is pointless to get so worked up over something like this unless you're willing to investigate it and speak to it's "badness," with first hand knowledge. Otherwise, you're just screaming about the boogieman. Just my two cents. 

Well, that's an easy two cents without having to admit it's disgusting exploitation.  

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

Just so I'm clear.

It is now OK to produce/distribute/consume child porn as long as there is a convincing disclaimer attached to it that child porn is actually not ok.

Do I have this right?

Edited September 20, 2020 by CautiouslyOptimistic

[Weezy1973]

It’s like a movie showing the horrors of war and then people claiming that glorifies violence. 
 

The movie is telling a story of a tween who is struggling with issues I’m sure many struggle with. If people would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend these struggles don’t exist, have at it. But it doesn’t make these issues disappear.

[Weezy1973]

6 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

Just so I'm clear.

It is now OK to produce/distribute/consume child porn as long as there is a convincing disclaimer attached to it that child porn is actually not ok.

Do I have this right?

No. You’re very wrong. 

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

6 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

It’s like a movie showing the horrors of war and then people claiming that glorifies violence. 
 

The movie is telling a story of a tween who is struggling with issues I’m sure many struggle with. If people would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend these struggles don’t exist, have at it. But it doesn’t make these issues disappear.

Movies about war are about soldiers who are not minors.

[Mrin]

15 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

First hand knowledge? 

Well, that's an easy two cents without having to admit it's disgusting exploitation.  

Nope. Haven't seen it. Not defending it. Not condemning it either.

Father of two teenage daughters too if that matters. 

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

Just now, Mrin said:

Nope. Haven't seen it. Not defending it. Not condemning it either.

Father of two teenage daughters too if that matters. 

It does matter.  How are you OK with child exploitation?  These are not adults. This is not "Showgirls."  These are children.

[Ruby Slippers]

5 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

It does matter.  How are you OK with child exploitation?  These are not adults. This is not "Showgirls."  These are children.

A-freaking-men.

[LivingWaterPlease]

8 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

Just so I'm clear.

It is now OK to produce/distribute/consume child porn as long as there is a convincing disclaimer attached to it that child porn is actually not ok.

Do I have this right?

I agree and thank you for your wise comments, CO. I haven't watched it and won't. I have seen a couple of photos of the little girls and the way they are dressed and doing the duck lips and that's all I needed to evaluate it.

I don't care how it's portrayed as a "story line" the visual impact of this type thing is harming our society. If a person can't view our society and see there's huge problem with the way some of our children are being mistreated, then I don't know what can be said or demonstrated that will convince that person. We just have to accept that people have different values about how children should be regarded and protected. Not everyone even respects themselves, much less others of all ages.

That said, those who understand what is at stake in the protection of all children need to take a stand. And many are, thankfully. I know many who are canceling their Netflix subscriptions. 

[NuevoYorko]

9 hours ago, elaine567 said:

But it is promoting it. 
Do you think your average paedophile cares a damn about "the message", no, he is too busy clipping the juicy bits out of it to enjoy later or send to his mates...

Your average pedophile probably doesn't enjoy "Cuties" any more than kiddie beauty pageants, "Dance Moms" kids' routines or hanging out at the neighborhood pool.

[Weezy1973]

38 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

It does matter.  How are you OK with child exploitation?  These are not adults. This is not "Showgirls."  These are children.

Can’t see the forest for the trees exemplified.

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

I have two teenagers. One of them has been sexually assaulted (physically, in person).  I'm hit ALL THE TIME with messaging about how much teens are pressured or exposed to "sexting" and sending inappropriate images online.  I have had SO MANY CONVERSATIONS with my kids about this that they have almost gone to court for a cease and desist order (exaggeration).  At NO TIME in my history of parenting them (one of them is 19, another almost 18) have I EVER thought, "Oh maybe it would be more beneficial to me or to them to learn about this issue if we see a Netflix film where little girls are sexualized! Then maybe we will get it!"" This is such a week argument to make us think the sexualization of little girls is OK....it's sick. 

For those of you who think this is OK, WHY is it so important to you that WE are brought over to your side that the sexualization of little kids is OK?  Why? What's your agenda? Why is this important to you?

[Weezy1973]

42 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

LOL nice deflection.  I have no CLUE what you mean by what you just said.

You don’t understand the saying “can’t see the forest for the trees”? Or you don’t understand how it applies to your stance here?

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

2 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

You don’t understand the saying “can’t see the forest for the trees”? Or you don’t understand how it applies to your stance here?

I don't understand how it applies to my stance here. (Thanks for asking)

 

[LivingWaterPlease]

36 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

Because there is still a huge market for child exploitation, even with Epstein and Maxwell out of business. Ever heard what Corey Feldman had to say about his experiences in Hollywood as a child star? Basically passed around among the elites to serve as a sex toy for them all. It comes as no surprise to me that the Hollywood types want to encourage a film like Cuties, this is what they like. Step by step until this sort of thing becomes more accepted. Remember, it's a sexual orientation to some people. 

This. Almost every action, good, seemingly neutral, or bad, that is taken in life is the result of a step-by-step journey. When I was growing up there are things that were considered perversions that are now acceptable in society. I didn't even know about some of those things as a teenager, didn't know they existed, and now they are common knowledge even among children. 

How did that happen? Through step-by-step familiarization. Today's perversion, familiarized enough, becomes tomorrow's normalcy.  

And if you don't think there may be a girl or two, or more, who acted in this movie, who was abused at some point or who will be abused (not even counting the reality that allowing a child to be in such a movie qualifies as abuse) as a result of participating in this type of portrayal you aren't reading the accounts of actresses and actors who've recounted their experiences of being abused as children in the entertainment industries even when there were seemingly totally innocent story lines and movies recorded. How much more vulnerable is a child dressed like this and twerking, etc., especially when the industries' moguls, employees, etc., know a parent will allow their child to participate in the making of such.

That is to say nothing of children who may be in harm's way from someone who may develop a predilection for this type of thing. How do you develop a predilection for anything? Step-by-step.

For those of you who want to call it righteous outrage, or basking in whatever, it's worth it to be referred to as such in order to stand up for our children.

You know how you learn to like playing golf? By getting familiar with it. That's how everything starts in life. Familiarization.

The best thing for our society is to take steps in a direction that will ensure safe lives and healthy futures for our children.

Edited September 20, 2020 by LivingWaterPlease

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

4 minutes ago, LivingWaterPlease said:

You know how you learn to like playing golf? By getting familiar with it. That's how everything starts in life. Familiarization.

The best thing for our society is to take steps in a direction that will ensure safe lives and healthy futures for our children.

Sounds like such common sense.  It's a mystery to me why some people (even seemingly really good parents) resist this so fiercely, even when I know they actually really care for and want to protect the safety of their own children.

[Weezy1973]

17 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

I don't understand how it applies to my stance here. (Thanks for asking)

 

The movie is meant to (amongst other things) demonize the sexualization of girls. That’s the point. That’s what the movie’s about. You’re actually on the same page here. You’re horrified by it. Rightfully so. But don’t shoot the messenger. 

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

There are two sides to this issue:

1.  People who are OK with the sexual exploitation of minors as long as it's for a "greater good."

2.  People who are never OK with the sexual exploitation of minors for any reason.

I'm firmly with the number twos and always will be.

Edited September 20, 2020 by CautiouslyOptimistic

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

2 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

The movie is meant to (amongst other things) demonize the sexualization of girls. That’s the point. That’s what the movie’s about. You’re actually on the same page here. You’re horrified by it. Rightfully so. But don’t shoot the messenger. 

I'm perfectly fine with shooting the messenger in this case.  Did all the profits of this movie go to child trafficking organizations as if it was some sort of educational documentary?  (I don't know the answer to this question and I'm open to all answers!). 

[Weezy1973]

5 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

There are two sides to this issue:

1.  People who are OK with the sexual exploitation of minors as long as it's for a "greater good."

2.  People who are are never OK with the sexual exploitation of minors for any reason.

I'm firmly with the number twos and always will be.

Or 3. People who don’t believe there’s any sexual exploitation going on here, which people would understand if they’ve seen the movie.

[LivingWaterPlease]

22 minutes ago, CautiouslyOptimistic said:

Sounds like such common sense.  It's a mystery to me why some people (even seemingly really good parents) resist this so fiercely, even when I know they actually really care for and want to protect the safety of their own children.

I doubt you can generalize why some resist it so fiercely. Seems to me each person is an individual with their own story as to why and how they think as they do.

Edited September 20, 2020 by LivingWaterPlease