Netflix sexualising children.

Arghus

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Have you seen it yet?

Yes.

Outlaw Pete

Arghus wrote: »

I would imagine that everything was done in a safe and controlled manner.

That's as maybe but exploitation can take place after the fact too and in this case I think that's mostly where it occured.

For example, a doctor could be examining a child in a safe and controlled manner but unbeknownst there's a hidden camera somewhere perhaps and so the child is then being exploited regardless of how well they were treated.

That's what I feel happened here. They were exploited with regards to how they were filmed and in the edit also. That provocative dance of those preteen girls spreading their legs, simulating masturbation etc, with full on close up shots of their bodies as they did so, is and will always be available for viewing.

I can't believe people don't get this ...

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's as maybe but exploitation can take place after the fact too and in this case I think that's mostly where it occured.

...

I can't believe people don't get this ...

That’s not a comparable example at all as there was nothing about hidden cameras here, but I do get what you’re saying about the fact that the film now exists forever more. Yes it does, and one can only hope, as I’m sure the director and the children involved hope, that it will serve as a means to address the issues in French society that the film highlights.

auspicious

French society is supposedly exemplary as a top tier first world/nation of modern civilisation and as such reflects ideals sought-after by 'lesser' nations. Therefore the film's message critiques issues of our modern first world values and the direction they're heading.

Sam Quentin

Nevermind Netfix look at the greater picture,.and wether we like it or not!? social media is rearing our children...it f#ckin breaks my heart..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Arghus wrote: »

Well I can't speak about the trailer - because I haven't seen it.

I don't believe that being of the opinion that watching a film is essential to actually coming to a final judgement on it is lofty - I would have thought that was obvious.

What's seen in screen would have had to be filmed, of course. But what we see on screen is I'm pretty sure not what was acted out exactly. The reason I'm not saying the ends justify the means is because I don't believe these children were exploited. It depicts something but in cinematic terms it's the construction of meaning from edits, close ups, musical cues that give it that meaning. I would imagine the reality of how it was performed in front of the camera was totally different in practice to how it eventually is presented to us as viewers in the finished film.

Once again, I'm not saying the ends justify the means because I don't believe that child exploitation is justifiable - how could I? That's an insane point of view - but I don't believe actual child exploitation happened here, I would imagine that everything was done in a safe and controlled manner.

Well, you have said that I’ve made assumptions but the bolded bit is a big assumption on your part.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not a comparable example at all as there was nothing about hidden cameras here

I didn't say there was. I used that as an example of how a child being treated well in the moment does not mean that they are not being sexually exploited. No need to hide the camera here of course. It was in plain sight.

one can only hope, as I’m sure the director and the children involved hope, that it will serve as a means to address the issues in French society that the film highlights.

No, it will serve as a means of sexual gratification for those who are sexually aroused by such things.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, it will serve as a means of sexual gratification for those who are sexually aroused by such things.

I’ve no doubt it will do that too, and there is certainly an argument that can be made that the director will undoubtedly have foreseen this possibility too, and there is an argument can be made that the children’s parents will have undoubtedly foreseen this possibility, and while I cannot say for certain, I imagine that they will have made the children involved aware of the possibility of people using the film for purposes for which it was never intended.

It’s definitely something of a moral quandary as to whether or not the potentially positive consequences outweigh the potential negative consequences, but once everyone is at least aware of that possibility, then they can mitigate against it in order to protect the children involved from any harm that may come to them as a consequence of appearing in the film and as actors having to do what they did on camera and knowing it’s out there.

That’s a very different scenario to the point they were making in the film about the fact that there are children doing what the girls in the film were doing, and not being aware of the potential consequences of their behaviour and the impact that their behaviours have on their attitudes and their self-esteem in later life - the reality of the children they were portraying that don’t have the protection and mitigation that these girls will have by being surrounded by people who support them, and their parents who are advocates against the sexualisation of children in French society.

Nobody has a crystal ball that they can predict with any degree of accuracy what may happen in the future, but one thing I’m at least certain of is that the director didn’t approach the subject lightly or without due consideration for the safety and welfare of all the children in the film.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve no doubt it will do that too, and there is certainly an argument that can be made that the director will undoubtedly have foreseen this possibility too, and there is an argument can be made that the children’s parents will have undoubtedly foreseen this possibility, and while I cannot say for certain, I imagine that they will have made the children involved aware of the possibility of people using the film for purposes for which it was never intended.

It’s definitely something of a moral quandary as to whether or not the potentially positive consequences outweigh the potential negative consequences, but once everyone is at least aware of that possibility, then they can mitigate against it in order to protect the children involved from any harm that may come to them as a consequence of appearing in the film and as actors having to do what they did on camera and knowing it’s out there.

Then they should have made sure they did not provide such people with the very thing they would clearly want to see, which is what they did and in Full HD too, with close ups.

That’s a very different scenario to the point they were making in the film about the fact that there are children doing what the girls in the film were doing, and not being aware of the potential consequences of their behaviour and the impact that their behaviours have on their attitudes and their self-esteem in later life - the reality of the children they were portraying that don’t have the protection and mitigation that these girls will have by being surrounded by people who support them, and their parents who are advocates against the sexualisation of children in French society.

Again, understand the so called point of the film but they undermined their intentions when they became exploiters themselves.

Nobody has a crystal ball that they can predict with any degree of accuracy what may happen in the future, but one thing I’m at least certain of is that the director didn’t approach the subject lightly or without due consideration for the safety and welfare of all the children in the film.

I have not suggested they/she did anything to affect these children's safety but as I have already pointed out, they don't have to have in order to have sexually exploited these young girls as the mere footage of them dancing provocatively with close up footage of them simulating masturbation, while spreading their legs, is more than enough for them to be guilty of that.

bobbyy gee

i hope they get mulan.soon

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Then they should have made sure they did not provide such people with the very thing they would clearly want to see, which is what they did and in Full HD too, with close ups.

If I were to roll that viewpoint back to it’s logical premise, then I would suggest that nobody should have children ever because we’re giving paedophiles an open opportunity to do what paedophiles are gonna do, and anyone who has children is contributing to the problem of paedophiles attitudes and behaviours and putting children at risk.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, understand the so called point of the film but they undermined their intentions when they became exploiters themselves.

I have not suggested they/she did anything to affect these children's safety but as I have already pointed out, they don't have to have in order to have sexually exploited these young girls as the mere footage of them dancing provocatively with close up footage of them simulating masturbation, while spreading their legs, is more than enough for them to be guilty of that.

I don’t agree that any children involved in the film were exploited in the first place, so I don’t agree that the people involved in the film are actually guilty of any wrongdoing. Again it’s the people who use the film for purposes for which it was never intended are in the wrong.

Gruffalux

Here is a thing. Or several things..
If children are hypersexualised now then it is because of hypersexualisation in the wider culture seeping into their lives. How many of the people defending hypersexualing children to make an artistic / social commentary point would also be against removal or strict censorship of porn hub, censorship of videos like WAP, curtailment of the so called rights of girls to make a nice fat cheque every month on OnlyFans, liberal normalisation of so called sex "work" and so on and on. In my opinion they would be the very ones sneering at people who objected to those aspects of modern culture as being pearl clutchers, quasi religious etc . They call those expressions freedoms. While they themselves will simultaneously furrow the brow and nod sympathetically about the Directors hard choices in Cuties to bring a hard issue to our attention.

Cuties will do zero about child hypersexualisation. Zero. It has just added to the sum of it. Imagine if a movie about child marriage showed scenes of sexualised 11 year olds? And people said but this is the reality.. etc. Nothing will change because the society will continue to be profoundly disturbing to these children in its own inherent contradictions and those contradictions will be defended as liberal rights of expression; to attach anything other than value neutral judgement to modern manifestations of culture is to be an anachronistic crank.

Also Maimouma Doucourè is 35. She was 11 almost a quarter of a century ago. The internet was in its infancy and social media did not exist. I know she says the story is personal rather than autobiographical and says she interviewed modern children. But she cannot know this story personally as hypersexualisation via the ubiquitous eye of the camera was very limited in 1995 . Islam in French inner cities has also changed hugely in 25 years. The influence of fundamentalism is stronger. In parts of Paris women are forbidden from entering cafes. Nadia Remadna, living in Paris, has more recently written a book called How I Saved My Children and it is about the ultra religious extremism that has developed in the heart of suburbs around places like Paris. These points I mention to illustrate that the Director is creating a fictional melange from her own youth and imagery gleaned second hand from an extreme part of the modern world dominated by social media. So there are credibility issues on many levels.

What do the defenders of public sexualisation of children for supposedly advancing public consciousness of child sexualisation say to censorship of the very modes of societal hypersexualisation that feed the children's disturbance?

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to think like one of those nonces that you keep shouting about.

Ah the old "anyone concerned about children being exploited must be a secret paedo" line. Don't worry Andrew, i don't see Netflix bowing to pressure on this one, Cuties will be available for you to enjoy at your leisure.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Here is a thing. Or several things..
If children are hypersexualised now then it is because of hypersexualisation in the wider culture seeping into their lives. How many of the people defending hypersexualing children to make an artistic / social commentary point would also be against removal or strict censorship of porn hub, censorship of videos like WAP, curtailment of the so called rights of girls to make a nice fat cheque every month on OnlyFans, liberal normalisation of so called sex "work" and so on and on. In my opinion they would be the very ones sneering at people who objected to those aspects of modern culture as being pearl clutchers, quasi religious etc . They call those expressions freedoms. While they themselves will simultaneously furrow the brow and nod sympathetically about the Directors hard choices in Cuties to bring a hard issue to our attention.

That’s the point the director was making, that hypersexualisation of children has become so normalised with the perpetuation of social media that people don’t even see it for what it is. As for whether or not to censor it and the other things you mention like prostitution (my record on this site alone of my opposition to decriminalising prostitution is there), I don’t think censorship would work, but rather in my experience education works far better than censorship. I’m not talking about educating children with the idea that there are an infinite variety of genders and they can identify as they please on a whim, I’ve been opposed to that particular ideology being taught in Irish schools for a lot longer than the sponsors of the recent sex education bill tried to have the idea introduced in the Oireachtas (the bill fell due to the change in Government, but you can look it up and see what it contained for yourself here). I’ve already given my opinion on the WAP video and Onlyfans, they’re only two examples of a far more ubiquitous phenomenon that won’t be combatted by censorship, but rather by educating children about the alternatives that are available to them so that they aren’t obsessed with the self and their self-image and seeking recognition and validation in ways that they imagine are the most obvious means to them to gain recognition and validation. The whole point of the film and what has always been my point is that isn’t freedom, it’s shìt, and it’s limiting their choices and their potential by moulding themselves in ways that aren’t realistic in order to be who they imagine someone else wants them to be rather than being themselves.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Cuties will do zero about child hypersexualisation. Zero. It has just added to the sum of it. Imagine if a movie about child marriage showed scenes of sexualised 11 year olds? And people said but this is the reality.. etc. Nothing will change because the society will continue to be profoundly disturbing to these children in its own inherent contradictions and those contradictions will be defended as liberal rights of expression; to attach anything other than value neutral judgement to modern manifestations of culture is to be an anachronistic crank.

You may well be right, Cuties might do nothing, and it also might inspire some people to do more to combat the sexualisation of children, it might even inspire children who were involved in it to campaign and petition the French Government to combat the sexualisation of children. I don’t imagine Greta Thundering levels of notoriety for most children and there’s every chance they will fade back into obscurity, but if it makes one small change in their lives, it’s put them on a different path already. Sure, it looks like a monumentous task right now, but cultural shifts in any direction take place over generations, like tectonic plates. It doesn’t just happen overnight and it doesn’t happen with grandiose gestures.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Also Maimouma Doucourè is 35. She was 11 almost a quarter of a century ago. The internet was in its infancy and social media did not exist. I know she says the story is personal rather than autobiographical and says she interviewed modern children. But she cannot know this story personally as hypersexualisation via the ubiquitous eye of the camera was very limited in 1995 . Islam in French inner cities has also changed hugely in 25 years. The influence of fundamentalism is stronger. In parts of Paris women are forbidden from entering cafes. Nadia Remadna, living in Paris, has more recently written a book called How I Saved My Children and it is about the ultra religious extremism that has developed in the heart of suburbs around places like Paris. These points I mention to illustrate that the Director is creating a fictional melange from her own youth and imagery gleaned second hand from an extreme part of the modern world dominated by social media. So there are credibility issues on many levels.

1983 - Samantha Fox appears at 16 on Page 3

1992 - Madonna released her book - Sex.

1995 - Playboy was on top shelves in Irish newsagents

1997 - Lolita was released in Irish cinemas, the same year as Kate Winslet asked Leo to draw her like one of his French girls.

2005 - Gardaí released a statement saying that anyone found to be sharing pictures of a young girl wearing only her school uniform jumper, could face prosecution.

Like I said, I could give examples all day, but to imagine there’s a credibility issue because social media wasn’t as ubiquitous in 1995 as it is now, is disingenuous. And those are only the examples I remember from my own growing up in Irish society. French society were far more liberal, and Paris was always touted as the Capital of Fashion in the media - Supermodels weren’t just invented in the 90’s.

What do the defenders of public sexualisation of children for supposedly advancing public consciousness of child sexualisation say to censorship of the very modes of societal hypersexualisation that feed the children's disturbance?

Like I said - censorship won’t do anything to educate children. Education, on the other hand, gives children the freedom to see further opportunities than resigning themselves to a life of misery and their only escape being to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder.

conorhal

Hmmmm.... Donno if it's been mentioned here yet, but Yann Maritaud, Cuties’ cinematographer, is no stranger to filming bare and exposed underage children.
Just last year he filmed a 15-minute short “comedy” called Gronde Marmaille (2019) which is about a seven-year-old girl (Siloe Lecrops) who runs around naked in the summer.

https://www.sausageroll.com.au/entertainment/movies/cuties-investigated-producers-requested-videos-of-young-girls-twerking/

Seems to have form and a fondness for lovingly filming naked underage girls....

Gatling

conorhal wrote: »

Hmmmm.... Donno if it's been mentioned here yet, but Yann Maritaud, Cuties’ cinematographer,

Seems to have form and a fondness for lovingly filming naked underage girls....

Not really no , there was no child nudity in cuties or the film you mentioned the child actor is filmed in underwear ,

Nudity , partial nudity ,crop top doesn't equal sex or child sex abuse

conorhal

Gatling wrote: »

Not really no , there was no child nudity in cuties or the film you mentioned the child actor is filmed in underwear ,

Nudity , partial nudity ,crop top doesn't equal sex or child sex abuse

Really, there's nudity on the cover poster of an underage girl on IMDB of the short film.

I notice that before it was mysteriously deleted (hmmmmm), the wikipedia profile the producer of Cuties producer Sylvain de Zangroniz mentioned that has courted some controversy as a result of his films highly sexualizing young girls.

But yeah, nothing sketchy at all about the people involved in this film.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

T
Like I said - censorship won’t do anything to educate children. Education, on the other hand, gives children the freedom to see further opportunities than resigning themselves to a life of misery and their only escape being to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder.

It is not really to do with censorship. Censorship implies some kind of draconian fascism, which is stupid. The debate we are supposed to be prodded into having would involve really looking at and questioning what we consider acceptable as a civilization. Is this what to be human means? Is this as good as we can do? Is there a good reason why we must supply the ways and means to satisfy all of our desires no matter how they may harm others, no matter how base? Why do we have to scratch every itch like beasts and call it liberty or freedom? Does libertinism really benefit people at a deep level, protect children, families, society? Etc and on and on.
But that debate will never happen, or only at a very surface pseudo-intellectual level because individual liberal freedom above all is the accepted and only acceptable morality. And once that is so, moral relativism will always allow the existence of any and all kinds of material that will seep into the lives of children very easily. That cannot be stopped. The cross over. Children live in the atmosphere we have created and enabled. They cannot be cocooned in some other atmosphere. People will chatter over the supposed horror at sexualised children and say oh look at this or that clever movie which brings it to our attention - how risqué, how avant-garde we are - while fighting to defend complete hypersexualisation in other areas as being a human right of some sort. Education - which is just yammering at people ideologically, but is rarely honest - cannot defend against that.
We are where we are. People can only be responsible for themselves.

“It is interesting to note that the "sexual revolution" was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word "household" suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day.” ~ Michel Houellebecq (Atomised)

Gatling

conorhal wrote: »

Really, there's nudity on the cover poster of an underage girl on IMDB of the short film.

I notice that before it was mysteriously deleted (hmmmmm)

Mysteriously deleted .


Oh the conspiracies ...........



What ever you do stay away from beaches in the summer

conorhal

Gatling wrote: »

Mysteriously deleted .


Oh the conspiracies ...........



What ever you do stay away from beaches in the summer

Well there's nothing mysterious about it really.

Of course they wayback machine never forgets:




I'm not much for the beach myself, but if anybody shouldn't be allowed within a hundred meters of a beach full of kids, I put it to you, that should probably be the kind of people defending this trash.

Tony EH

The FNG wrote: »

I wonder why the parents allowed their daughters to audition for this crap?

Who knows. It couldn't possibly be because they might be interested in a career in acting, could it?

And the girl who played Amy has a bright future if she keeps it up. She was very good in her role.

Gatling

conorhal wrote: »

Well there's nothing mysterious about it really.

Of course they wayback machine never forgets:

Nothing about sexualising young girls wonder if its his connection to that one film on Netflix

Quantum Erasure

conorhal wrote: »

Well there's nothing mysterious about it really.
.

If that was the extent of the page it's no surprise it was deleted, wonder when it was created or by who

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is not really to do with censorship. Censorship implies some kind of draconian fascism, which is stupid. The debate we are supposed to be prodded into having would involve really looking at and questioning what we consider acceptable as a civilization. Is this what to be human means? Is this as good as we can do? Is there a good reason why we must supply the ways and means to satisfy all of our desires no matter how they may harm others, no matter how base? Why do we have to scratch every itch like beasts and call it liberty or freedom? Does libertinism really benefit people at a deep level, protect children, families, society? Etc and on and on.
But that debate will never happen, or only at a very surface pseudo-intellectual level because individual liberal freedom above all is the accepted and only acceptable morality.

I think the film was less about prodding people into having a philosophical debate about the issues, that certainly is the French liberal approach to everything - intellectualise it and make it abstract, distance oneself from that sort of thing. The film goes against that philosophy by turning it on it’s head and shoving it in people’s faces, having them confront as close to reality as possible. It’s not about celebrating child sexuality as one numbnuts put it, it’s about portraying the reality of the individualistic society you’ve always pointed out issues with, but also the collective and more traditional society that you’ve pointed out issues with too! People shìt themselves at the thought of Islam gaining a foothold in French society, because it’s very existence threatens traditional core French values of liberty, freedom and equality (or the French idea of those concepts anyway). That’s why they endeavour to eliminate any element of society which functions as a collective, for fear that it threatens their established morality. The film as I understand it was intended as something of a wake-up call. However, given the way these things go, I don’t expect the film will have a global effect on civilisation, but rather it will make even a small number of people question their values. Everyone who “cancelled Netflix” will be back on it next week, but some people will be more motivated to endeavour for changes in society than they were before.

Gruffalox wrote: »

And once that is so, moral relativism will always allow the existence of any and all kinds of material that will seep into the lives of children very easily. That cannot be stopped. The cross over. Children live in the atmosphere we have created and enabled. They cannot be cocooned in some other atmosphere. People will chatter over the supposed horror at sexualised children and say oh look at this or that clever movie which brings it to our attention - how risqué, how avant-garde we are - while fighting to defend complete hypersexualisation in other areas as being a human right of some sort. Education - which is just yammering at people ideologically, but is rarely honest - cannot defend against that.
We are where we are. People can only be responsible for themselves.

It’s true, it can’t be stopped, but it can be put into context and perspective, in that one could choose to focus on eliminating the 10% of values they don’t agree with, or they can choose to focus on instilling the 90% of values which they believe are beneficial. The top all-girls school in the country that I mentioned earlier? The academic and sporting achievements of their students isn’t down to the idea that they spend any time engaging in philosophical introspective navel gazing. It’s because their education isn’t just chatter or anything to do with the length of their skirts. It’s because they are instilled with values as part of their education that give them the means to be honest with themselves and others about what they want to achieve in their lives. I don’t agree either that people are just responsible for themselves, that’s the very kind of individualistic thinking that fosters an individualistic and selfish mentality. I think people have a responsibility towards themselves and towards society, and certainly we have a responsibility towards children who are too immature and too young to be responsible for themselves.

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah the old "anyone concerned about children being exploited must be a secret paedo" line. Don't worry Andrew, i don't see Netflix bowing to pressure on this one, Cuties will be available for you to enjoy at your leisure.

Ah the old "anyone who doesn't jump up and down roaring nonce and paedo at this week's designated target must be a secret paedo" line. Was that yourself at the march on Saturday roaring paedo at anyone not in your gang? Tommy would be proud to see his tactics have travelled across the water.

But seriously, how come your first reaction to hearing about the auditions is to say 'Ooohh where are all the tapes'? Not 'I hope all those kids are OK or anything.

The movie wouldn't float my boat tbh. Foreign films wreck my head a bit.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I were to roll that viewpoint back to it’s logical premise, then I would suggest that nobody should have children ever because we’re giving paedophiles an open opportunity to do what paedophiles are gonna do, and anyone who has children is contributing to the problem of paedophiles attitudes and behaviours and putting children at risk.

That's absurd and in no way is it 'rolling a viewpoint' I expressed 'back to it's logical premise'. I am referring to something with unnaturally sexualized children and you're comparing it with just children being alive. About as week an argument as it gets.

I don’t agree that any children involved in the film were exploited in the first place, so I don’t agree that the people involved in the film are actually guilty of any wrongdoing. Again it’s the people who use the film for purposes for which it was never intended are in the wrong.

Yeah, no children were sexually exploited in Cuties at all. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

celticWario

Brb making a movie where the actors are actually killed to highlight that Murder is wrong.

Gatling

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Who's gone mental blurring the photos

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's absurd and in no way is it 'rolling a viewpoint' I expressed 'back to it's logical premise'. I am referring to something with unnaturally sexualized children and you're comparing it with just children being alive. About as week an argument as it gets.

It’s as absurd as the idea that the makers of the film are providing paedophiles with material to fuel their fantasies about children. I was making the point that merely by anyone having children they are doing that much, and if I were to suggest that we should stop having children because we’re providing paedophiles with fantasy fuel, it would rightly be called out as absurd. It’s as weak as the argument that you’re putting forward in suggesting that the makers of the film are providing paedophiles with what they want. Paedophiles are surrounded by children anyway, the idea that the film gives them anything they don’t have access to already, as a reason not to have included the clip, is just as weak.

That’s why I agreed that undoubtedly paedophiles will get something from it, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the vast majority of it’s audience will not regard that scene in the same way a paedophile would. I don’t think that’s an opinion that would come as a revelation to anyone.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, no children were sexually exploited in Cuties at all. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

Well you can portray it that way, however I don’t see it that way myself. I watched an awkward scene where young girls were emulating exactly what they had seen older girls doing and they thought that’s what they needed to do to win the competition. I don’t pretend to know how a paedophile might see it, I’m really not interested in their perspective.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as absurd as the idea that the makers of the film are providing paedophiles with material to fuel their fantasies about children.

They did.

I was making the point that merely by anyone having children they are doing that much

I know you were and I was pointing out that it was an absurd thing to say and it was. They sexualized pretteen girls by having them dance in a sexual provocative way, including spreading their legs, simulating masturbation and made sure to zoom in as they did so and you're trying to suggest that to categorize that as providing content for pedos is equivalent to saying that merely having children is catering to them also?! Like I said: absurd!

It’s as weak as the argument that you’re putting forward in suggesting that the makers of the film are providing paedophiles with what they want

Maybe in your head the arguments are the same but I assure you, they are not. I can't believe you're even trying to make such a ridiculous comparison.

Paedophiles are surrounded by children anyway, the idea that the film gives them anything they don’t have access to already, as a reason not to have included the clip, is just as weak.

That they have content anyway does not excuse creating more for them. Your arguments are getting weaker and I didn't think that was possible.

That’s why I agreed that undoubtedly paedophiles will get something from it, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the vast majority of it’s audience will not regard that scene in the same way a paedophile would. I don’t think that’s an opinion that would come as a revelation to anyone.

The children were sexually exploited regardless of what people feel about the scene.

Well you can portray it that way, however I don’t see it that way myself. I watched an awkward scene where young girls were emulating exactly what they had seen older girls doing and they thought that’s what they needed to do to win the competition.

Why the zooming in then? If the film just wanted to show us what the girls were doing, then why was it shot in the way it was? Why not keep the camera steady and further back.

Actually, one of the shots worked well and that was from behind the girls as they danced provocatively but they were all out of focus and the audience were in focus, but the rest of that scene was needlessly graphic and sexually exploitative of the girls.

About sums it up for me:


https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1305589690951782400

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Maybe in your head the arguments are the same but I assure you, they are not. I can't believe you're even trying to make such a ridiculous comparison.

I’m about to compound my initial error with another ridiculous comparison then, might want to brace yourself.

The whole idea of associating things which we find objectionable with fears for the safety and welfare of children is as old as civilised society itself - don’t like something, immediately associate it with paedophilia and jobs a good ‘un. It’s done all the time against ideas we find morally questionable or outright objectionable - religion, liberalism, etc. I don’t see this situation as being any different - associate it with paedophilia and jobs a good ‘un.

Except it’s not, because most people are unlikely to see even that image, or the scene itself, in the context in which you’re trying to portray it to suggest that the director is complicit in the very thing she is trying to highlight. In my view that’s a completely unreasonable stance and in my view what underlies the attempt to conflate the film with paedophilia is nothing more than hand-wringing and an attempt to portray something intended in one context, in a completely different context.

If someone wants to portray something as encouraging paedophilia or suggest that there’s something dodgy about anyone who doesn’t share their opinions, that’s on them. It’s not something I think anyone should ever have to be conscious of or apologise for. If someone wants to brand them a paedophile or accuse them of exploiting children, that person is entitled to their opinions. It doesn’t mean anyone is under any obligation to justify themselves or to even entertain accusations which are complete nonsense.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The whole idea of associating things which we find objectionable with fears for the safety and welfare of children is as old as civilised society itself - don’t like something, immediately associate it with paedophilia and jobs a good ‘un. It’s done all the time against ideas we find morally questionable or outright objectionable - religion, liberalism, etc. I don’t see this situation as being any different - associate it with paedophilia and jobs a good ‘un.

I never said anything about the safety of those children. You're making a strawman. I am merely saying they were sexually exploited to sell a film.

Except it’s not, because most people are unlikely to see even that image, or the scene itself, in the context in which you’re trying to portray it to suggest that the director is complicit in the very thing she is trying to highlight. In my view that’s a completely unreasonable stance and in my view what underlies the attempt to conflate the film with paedophilia is nothing more than hand-wringing and an attempt to portray something intended in one context, in a completely different context.

It's not hand wringing at all. There were ways in which to portray what she wanted to without partaking in the sexual exploitation of those girls and she chose not to take those routes. You're being naive if you think the scene, and all those poses in the stills, were shot the way they were purely to highlight sexual exploitation of young girls and not to generate as much publicity for the film as they could.

If someone wants to portray something as encouraging paedophilia or suggest that there’s something dodgy about anyone who doesn’t share their opinions, that’s on them. It’s not something I think anyone should ever have to be conscious of or apologise for. If someone wants to brand them a paedophile or accuse them of exploiting children, that person is entitled to their opinions. It doesn’t mean anyone is under any obligation to justify themselves or to even entertain accusations which are complete nonsense.

I'm sorry, but again, you don't just get a free pass to sexually exploit children because you say that's what you're against. You don't hear me complaining about all the other scenes in the film do you? And so it's quite clear that I get that it's a topic worth highlighting and making a film about, but you don't to shoot children in the manner they did just because of that. There's a line and they crossed it when had preteens simulating masturbation (of not just themselves, but males also) and zoomed in on them as their spread their legs. They went from portraying what goes on and shooting it in a manner which respected the girls, to engaging in sexual exploitation of preteen girls themselves.

Look, we're not gonna agree, so I'll leave it at that.

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never said anything about the safety of those children. You're making a strawman. I am merely saying they were sexually exploited to sell a film.

You’re saying the girls were sexually exploited, I’d say that was saying something about their safety being violated. You say you’ve never said anything about the safety of those children though. I’m confused, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that I’m missing something fundamental in saying that sexually exploiting children is not making any comment about their safety.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's not hand wringing at all. There were ways in which to portray what she wanted to without partaking in the sexual exploitation of those girls and she chose not to take those routes. You're being naive if you think the scene, and all those poses in the stills, were shot the way they were purely to highlight sexual exploitation of young girls and not to generate as much publicity for the film as they could.

Pete it was made for the Sundance film festival, Netflix chose to buy the rights to the film, and then chose to advertise it in as misleading and provocative a manner as they could in order to generate revenue from all sides. Some commentators on YouTube are predictably revelling in the idea of people “cancelling“ their Netflix subs and Netflix value dropping $9bn in the last few days as though there is a correlation between the two. That’s naive, IMO. $9bn is a 3% drop in their valuation. This time last year they dropped 10% in a week due to competition from Disney and Apple launching their streaming services.

The idea that the 3% drop is attributable to people’s indignation over the overt child exploitation and paedophilia (American commentators are the worst for it) is as bad as the attempt to portray the film, or even the scene in question, as child exploitation, or to suggest that the scenes were shot the way they were in order to generate as much publicity for the film as possible. Sundance films don’t really do publicity, but Netflix definitely saw an opportunity in the film to generate controversy and as much revenue as they could.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm sorry, but again, you don't just get a free pass to sexually exploit children because you say that's what you're against. You don't hear me complaining about all the other scenes in the film do you? And so it's quite clear that I get that it's a topic worth highlighting and making a film about, but you don't to shoot children in the manner they did just because of that. There's a line and they crossed it when had preteens simulating masturbation (of not just themselves, but males also) and zoomed in on them as their spread their legs. They went from portraying what goes on and shooting it in a manner which respected the girls, to engaging in sexual exploitation of preteen girls themselves.

Look, we're not gonna agree, so I'll leave it at that.

Nobody’s looking for a free pass, because they haven’t done anything wrong. There is most certainly a line, and I completely get why you’re saying they crossed it. In my opinion they didn’t even come anywhere near it, though I’d likely have agreed with your assessment if all I had to go on were just the clips and images taken out of context from a film where I thought they came a lot closer to the line in other parts of the film in terms of what they were attempting to portray, but knowing the precautions that were taken to protect the children and provide for their safety and welfare, I’m not going to get my knickers in a twist and pretend to get worked up about it.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re saying the girls were sexually exploited, I’d say that was saying something about their safety being violated. You say you’ve never said anything about the safety of those children though. I’m confused, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that I’m missing something fundamental in saying that sexually exploiting children is not making any comment about their safety.

As I said to you last night:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have not suggested they/she did anything to affect these children's safety but as I have already pointed out, they don't have to have in order to have sexually exploited these young girls as the mere footage of them dancing provocatively with close up footage of them simulating masturbation, while spreading their legs, is more than enough for them to be guilty of that.

Pete it was made for the Sundance film festival, Netflix chose to buy the rights to the film, and then chose to advertise it in as misleading and provocative a manner as they could in order to generate revenue from all sides. Some commentators on YouTube are predictably revelling in the idea of people “cancelling“ their Netflix subs and Netflix value dropping $9bn in the last few days as though there is a correlation between the two. That’s naive, IMO. $9bn is a 3% drop in their valuation. This time last year they dropped 10% in a week due to competition from Disney and Apple launching their streaming services.
The idea that the 3% drop is attributable to people’s indignation over the overt child exploitation and paedophilia (American commentators are the worst for it) is as bad as the attempt to portray the film, or even the scene in question, as child exploitation, or to suggest that the scenes were shot the way they were in order to generate as much publicity for the film as possible. Sundance films don’t really do publicity, but Netflix definitely saw an opportunity in the film to generate controversy and as much revenue as they could.

None of that would mean that they didn't craft that dance scene with an eye on the end result being something which generated as much publicity, and attention for the film makers, as possible.

Nobody’s looking for a free pass, because they haven’t done anything wrong.

It's wrong to film and then distribute preteens girls dancing provocatively, with close ups, as they simulate masturbating themselves and men, in such a graphic way. Again: they could have shot the scene and had us glimpse low resolutions of it on off-stage monitors and they would got the message across far better that there were unscrupulous people in the world that would shoot the girls in this manner. Instead though, they shot the girls that way themselves and distributed the footage to the world in Full HD.

There is most certainly a line, and I completely get why you’re saying they crossed it. In my opinion they didn’t even come anywhere near it, though I’d likely have agreed with your assessment if all I had to go on were just the clips and images taken out of context from a film where I thought they came a lot closer to the line in other parts of the film in terms of what they were attempting to portray, but knowing the precautions that were taken to protect the children and provide for their safety and welfare, I’m not going to get my knickers in a twist and pretend to get worked up about it.

You keep making this argument that they protected the children and again I make the point that you can protect children as much as you like, but if you go on to sexually exploit them, then that they were protected and kept safe on set whilst they were being exploited is meaningless. How you can't see preteen girls simulating the masturbation of themselves and men, whilst spreading their legs as the camera zooms in on their bodies, as sexually exploiting them .. I just don't know

One eyed Jack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You keep making this argument that they protected the children and again I make the point that you can protect children as much as you like, but if you go on to sexually exploit them, then that they were protected and kept safe on set whilst they were being exploited is meaningless. How you can't see preteen girls simulating the masturbation of themselves and men, whilst spreading their legs as the camera zooms in on their bodies, as sexually exploiting them .. I just don't know

The point I’m making is that I don’t agree they were being sexually exploited precisely because there were all sorts of precautions in place to protect them and ensure their safety. There were far more graphic scenes filmed in HD by men behind the cameras and I would be concerned for their safety and of course the fact that the movie is available forever more, if I wasn’t aware of the precautions that were taken to ensure their safety.

What you’re doing is very similar to anti-theists claims that children are exploited by religion and all the rest of it, and we should all be concerned and condemn what is being portrayed as child exploitation. In reality if I’d a cent for every time it was implied I was a paedophile, I’d be considerably wealthy. If I’d to issue an apology or explain myself every time to people who didn’t actually care whether I was or I wasn’t a paedophile, I’d have spent my whole life apologising and explaining myself to people who only wanted to imagine they are morally superior in one way or another. I‘ve never seen any reason to entertain their claims, any more than I think the director in this case should entertain the claims made against her.

It’s purely a cheap shot and isn’t worth entertaining IMO.

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I’m making is that I don’t agree they were being sexually exploited precisely because there were all sorts of precautions in place to protect them and ensure their safety.

Safety precautions don't negate the fact that at 11 years old the children were filmed provocatively dancing, with close up shots of them spreading their legs, as they simulated masturbation and that footage is now being distributed worldwide.

There were far more graphic scenes filmed in HD by men behind the cameras and I would be concerned for their safety and of course the fact that the movie is available forever more, if I wasn’t aware of the precautions that were taken to ensure their safety.

Back to these safety precautions again. We're going around in circles.

Corcaigh84

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exCNHEGnZ5M&ab_channel=PaymoneyWubby

Say what you want about this guy's take on it, but this video was the first I heard/saw on this topic. I used the search function to check was this posted already, apologies if it has but I'm not skimming back over 22 pages of the thread.

Anyway, I would be uncomfortable sitting through a movie such as this, and would hope that this type of thing doesn't become normalised. But maybe that's just me.

Tokyo

Mod: Swiping and backhanded comments deleted. Quit it.

Sweet.Science

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8732677/One-Britains-best-selling-dolls-reveal-secret-adult-style-lingerie-plunged-water.html

The cynic in me would believe there is a cohort of people out there trying to normalise all of this stuff

Gatling

Having finally gotten to watch this I have to the the mass hysteria around this movie is completely unjustified ,


It's not even funny how badly triggered some people ended up without even seeing it ,I don't believe from watching it is being exploitive towards girls or the actors who starred in it

paw patrol

Sweet.Science wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8732677/One-Britains-best-selling-dolls-reveal-secret-adult-style-lingerie-plunged-water.html

The cynic in me would believe there is a cohort of people out there trying to normalise all of this stuff

doesn't make you a cynic.

the alphabet soup twitter lobby is in full swing on this

don't you know bigot : love is love :rolleyes:

1800_Ladladlad

Jeremiah "Jerry" Harris, one of the stars of the Netflix documentary series Cheer, has been arrested and charged with producing child sex images.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54199115

Netflix again. & I have a feeling there are and will be more that come from out of the gutter

Gatling

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Netflix again. & I have a feeling there are and will be more that come from out of the gutter

Nothing to do with Netflix .