Netflix sexualising children.

Errashareesh

Stock responses like "don't watch it", "forward a complaint", "Were you as outraged about [insert other thing]?" ("outraged" is a term used to discredit btw - in numerous contexts) - these could be said about absolutely anything. They are at odds with the spirit of the place - a discussion forum. They're from people who think they're SO openminded but they're the opposite. They're not thinking it through at all - just ready with a pot shot (Mini Pops? I'd say most people here weren't even born when they were a thing).

So it seems it's the promotion of the programme - "sexy" clothing (for pre teens), reference to twerking, rather than the programme itself. Of course this is wildly dodgy - it won't make anyone look like a crazy bible thumper to acknowledge it. To downplay it is weird - I don't think it means someone is a paedo. I do think however that it makes them seem like slaves to not wanting to look like prudes.

ILoveYourVibes

RWCNT wrote: »

If the film does include 11 year olds twerking then it's absolutely sexualising kids and I'm dead against it. None of that in the trailer though, just seemed like regular dancing. I did it myself as a kid in stage school.

How the poster and the final line of that bio got approved is baffling. Did whoever wrote the bio not know what "twerking" means? Were they deliberately trying to provoke outrage? Very strange stuff.

You haven't seen the whole trailer then.

ILoveYourVibes

AllForIt wrote: »

On the one had it seems to something about feminism, on the other something about repressive cultures, and on another, that somehow it's about misogyny and racism.

The whole thing is racist and anti woman. They are trying to create a 'liberal' defense and trying it put it as ...this is conservatives up against us.

Its crap.

You cannot be pro woman and think this is ok.

I know you can say 'what were they thinking?'. They are smart people though. You would have to be WILLFULLY blind not to see this.

I mean we have had 15 yr old /16 yr old girls sexualized on catwalks and look what was happening behind the scenes there.

This needs to be pulled ...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I have made a complaint, I don't have a subscription anymore.
You seem to be upset..why?

Then get on twitter and start a cancel culture campaign. It's what the cool kids are doing.

Bobblehats

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then get on twitter and start a cancel culture campaign. It's what the cool kids are doing.

The cool kids are probably twerking and gyrating to the latest Cardi B video. I wouldn’t let my children near the youth discos nowadays, it’s all rot. Might even have to nip it early and pull them from the damn crèche

s1ippy

What is the actual purpose of this show? Is it aimed at 11 year olds? It doesn't appear to get into any of the nuance of why women do that kind of dance. It's self-expression, fine, but when you are doing something very sexy and provokative and you don't even know that you're probably making some creep very aroused, that's exploitation. If the show is encouraging 11 year olds to do this then it's extremely damaging and I would like to know who made it and to what end. You can break the shackles of oppression without making it about sexualising your prepubescent body. What a gross thing to type.

Junkyard Tom

s1ippy wrote: »

What is the actual purpose of this show?

Profit.

RWCNT

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You haven't seen the whole trailer then.

Go on then, what did I miss?

Rubberchikken

I watched the trailer out if curiosity and while I wouldn't watch the show, if we're to worry about every weirdo getting off on a young body then maybe we should cancel nappy ads etc.

Kids are dancing like this now and I've seen way younger than 11 gyrating away on public streets.
If parents allow kids to watch the quality of videos out today then they only have themselves to blame for girls thinking that dressing In such a way and dancing like that is acceptable.

Bear in mind kids are copying what they see adults doing. And certain adults will only see what they choose to see.

Psychiatric Patrick

s1ippy wrote: »

What is the actual purpose of this show? Is it aimed at 11 year olds? It doesn't appear to get into any of the nuance of why women do that kind of dance. It's self-expression, fine, but when you are doing something very sexy and provokative and you don't even know that you're probably making some creep very aroused, that's exploitation. If the show is encouraging 11 year olds to do this then it's extremely damaging and I would like to know who made it and to what end. You can break the shackles of oppression without making it about sexualising your prepubescent body. What a gross thing to type.

I did some very quick googling here.

The woman who wrote and directed the movie has criticised the Netflix marketing. She agrees it it did sexualise the cast and that Netflix don't seem to understand what the movie is about.

I believe the purpose of the the movie is too speak out against young girls being pushed into "growing up" by the world around them and to let them be kids.

However, those involved seem oblivious to the fact that making this drama is actually sexualising those girls by putting them in the movie.

Canis Lupus

This goes further than twerking. Look at this. Young girls in disgraceful poses for all the pedos to be watching. Now let me just say that I haven't actually looked into what is going on in this photo just that I see young women with makeup and short skirts and they're legs in the air and frankly I can't see how this should be allowed.

AllForIt

Errashareesh wrote: »

Stock responses like "don't watch it", "forward a complaint", "Were you as outraged about [insert other thing]?" ("outraged" is a term used to discredit btw - in numerous contexts) - these could be said about absolutely anything. They are at odds with the spirit of the place - a discussion forum.

Indeed. That was poster *ancapailldorcha* that started that craic off. Moderator of the politics forum, of all forums, if you please.

The irony, and a rather worrying one for a discussion forum at that. Then again, I'm not in the slightest bit surprised.

They're from people who think they're SO openminded but they're the opposite. They're not thinking it through at all - just ready with a pot shot (Mini Pops? I'd say most people here weren't even born when they were a thing).

What an excellent point. People who are so 'right-on', but only seem to be 'right-on' about the things they specifically are wrapped up in. Someone else has a right-on point they never thought of, and they sneer at it.

So it seems it's the promotion of the programme - "sexy" clothing (for pre teens), reference to twerking, rather than the programme itself. Of course this is wildly dodgy - it won't make anyone look like a crazy bible thumper to acknowledge it. To downplay it is weird - I don't think it means someone is a paedo. I do think however that it makes them seem like slaves to not wanting to look like prudes.

I think in respect of this discussion forum, it's more a case of some posters having a feeling of superiority over others. If they didn't have a problem with it, then those that do are somehow inferior. I can't abide those kinds of people.

Psychiatric Patrick

I think the Netflix chiefs need to send some staff for training and therapy but then again those Netflix chiefs signed another multi-million dollar deal with Adam Sandler - which as it turns out is a good business deal because people are watching that muck.

So really no one but me has the right to judge anyone :rolleyes:

ILoveYourVibes

Its strange when adults seem to think the bodies of children are their property to act out their thoughts wishes desires or story lines.

They are treating them as dolls.

s1ippy

Canis Lupus wrote: »

This goes further than twerking. Look at this. Young girls in disgraceful poses for all the pedos to be watching. Now let me just say that I haven't actually looked into what is going on in this photo just that I see young women with makeup and short skirts and they're legs in the air and frankly I can't see how this should be allowed.

I did the sound engineering for a play last year and there was one transition scene in it where out of nowhere a load of thirteen year old start flinging their legs into the air like that. I never adjusted to it if I'm being honest, we did Irish dancing when I was their age and there definitely wasn't as much underwear shown. I thought it was completely vulgar and unnecessary. Totally irrelevant to the rest of the play as well.

Psychiatric Patrick

Canis Lupus wrote: »

This goes further than twerking. Look at this. Young girls in disgraceful poses for all the pedos to be watching. Now let me just say that I haven't actually looked into what is going on in this photo just that I see young women with makeup and short skirts and they're legs in the air and frankly I can't see how this should be allowed.

I don't know if your are genuine or having a laugh but the Irish dancing is exactly the same as that pagent muck.

My sister's used to to do it. I don't know what it was like back in the 70s but I went to a competition that two of my nieces in maybe 15 years ago. It was a horror show.

Fake tans, wigs, layers make up and the vicious comments from mothers to the kids. And the costumes!!!

I had my hands over my eyes nearly the whole time but was afraid to leave. My girlfriend at the time was with me and she was horrified through the whole thing - and she ha been a stripper when going to university.

Psychiatric Patrick

s1ippy wrote: »

I did the sound engineering for a play last year and there was one transition scene in it where out of nowhere a load of thirteen year old start flinging their legs into the air like that. I never adjusted to it if I'm being honest, we did Irish dancing when I was their age and there definitely wasn't as much underwear shown. I thought it was completely vulgar and unnecessary. Totally irrelevant to the rest of the play as well.

Was that in Limerick by any chance?

I have friend down there. Her little girl was in a local singing and dancing club. They did a show that had dance like that and met friend said it was awful. She took the kid out of the show at the club straight away.

s1ippy

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Was that in Limerick by any chance?

I have friend down there. Her little girl was in a local singing and dancing club. They did a show that had dance like that and met friend said it was awful. She took the kid out of the show at the club straight away.

Yeah, we did a run in a couple of different counties... Be fairly funny if it was the same one. There's an old man talking about his job one second and then suddenly... FLEADH

Chris_Heilong

Oh Netflix, This is disgusting and the people defending it all seem to be the same ultra "progressives" types, should we all be adding a P to the end of LGBT next? People are complaining and rightly so.

Psychiatric Patrick

When I google Netflix it is all about the complaints about this movie.

I wonder if Netflix will delay or cancel the release?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I don't know if your are genuine or having a laugh but the Irish dancing is exactly the same as that pagent muck.

My sister's used to to do it. I don't know what it was like back in the 70s but I went to a competition that two of my nieces in maybe 15 years ago. It was a horror show.

Fake tans, wigs, layers make up and the vicious comments from mothers to the kids. And the costumes!!!

I had my hands over my eyes nearly the whole time but was afraid to leave. My girlfriend at the time was with me and she was horrified through the whole thing - and she ha been a stripper when going to university.

This is what I got from the comparison too - it's about the superficiality of it. Which is not the same as sexualisation, I know, but it's getting there.

Psychiatric Patrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is what I got from the comparison too - it's about the superficiality of it. Which is not the same as sexualisation, I know, but it's getting there.

Yes I know that at the time I would not have described it as sexualisation. I don't actually have a word for it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

Yes I know that at the time I would not have described it as sexualisation. I don't actually have a word for it

I'd imagine there is no word for a fetish of Irish dancing.

lawred2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Weve reached the point where people are more comfortable excusing paedophelia and the sexualisation of children than agreeing with anyone they presume is ‘right wing’

Huh?

Eric Cartman

https://mobile.twitter.com/netflix/status/1296486375211053057

Even netflix themselves realise the artwork for it was wrong , proving the “i dont see the issue” crowd would rather allow the sexualisation of children than agree with people in the right political aisle.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Weve reached the point where people are more comfortable excusing paedophelia and the sexualisation of children than agreeing with anyone they presume is ‘right wing’

That, Eric, is because you place a massive amounf of weight on something being either left-wing or right-wing in the first place.

You do realise it's possibile to be repulsed by pedophilia AND be left wing, right?

Eric Cartman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That, Eric, is because you place a massive amounf of weight on something being either left-wing or right-wing in the first place.

You do realise it's possibile to be repulsed by pedophilia AND be left wing, right?

That seems to be a harder and harder position to take as time goes on. Calling out the abuse of children from child drag queens, trans kids to this sickness is all coming from the right on here and in general society.

Its one of those things that should have been A-political like abortion , but calling out child sex abuse is now becoming a firmly right wing view.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That seems to be a harder and harder position to take as time goes on. Calling out the abuse of children from child drag queens, trans kids to this sickness is all coming from the right on here and in general society.

Its one of those things that should have been A-political like abortion , but calling out child sex abuse is now becoming a firmly right wing view.

Therein lies your problem:

Pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila
Pro trans kids / kids in drag = left wing
Therefore, in your mind: pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila.

Even though nothing in the trailer hints at either transgenderism or transvestitism or left/right poitics (liberal/conservative, yes; but that's not the same thing)
And yet we're talking left/right wing and pedophilia for some reason.

Psychiatric Patrick

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That seems to be a harder and harder position to take as time goes on. Calling out the abuse of children from child drag queens, trans kids to this sickness is all coming from the right on here and in general society.

Its one of those things that should have been A-political like abortion , but calling out child sex abuse is now becoming a firmly right wing view.

I'm neither left wing or right wing.

Is there a name for that?

Podge_irl

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/netflix/status/1296486375211053057

Even netflix themselves realise the artwork for it was wrong , proving the “i dont see the issue” crowd would rather allow the sexualisation of children than agree with people in the right political aisle.

Pretty much no one has defended the artwork - they have defended the movie based on reports, reviews, trailers and interviews. Clearly some arseholes at Netflix US have misinterpreted the movie in a pretty mind boggling way.

The movie is exploring a topic that already exists, and is pretty much entirely the fault of the sexualisation and demeaning of women that adults pretty happily engage in. It is meant to provide a window into one of the consequences of those actions. It is supposed to make you uncomfortable and, hopefully, reflect on what is causing it.

You may as well complain about Beasts of No Nation being responsible for child soldiers.

Eric Cartman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Therein lies your problem:

Pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila
Pro trans kids / kids in drag = left wing
Therefore, in your mind: pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila.

Even though nothing in the trailed hints at either transgenderism or transvestitism.

But its not just trans kids is it, its things like this , a poster early on in this thread went so far as to say that the only reason the ‘right wing nazi types’ have an issue with this is because its a nice story about immigrant girls.

The left defended desmond a 10 year old child drag queen dancing in a gay nightclub for men calling out the ‘right’ as homophobes for opposing it.

Every time something morally repugnant happens that involves children and posters who would be labelled as ‘right wing’ give out about it, the usual faces on here come along to call them racists/nazis/homophobes and say they don’t see the issue with it and make up an alternative reason as to why we hate the child abuse thing.

i_surge

Errashareesh wrote: »

Stock responses like "don't watch it", "forward a complaint", "Were you as outraged about [insert other thing]?" ("outraged" is a term used to discredit btw - in numerous contexts) - these could be said about absolutely anything. They are at odds with the spirit of the place - a discussion forum. They're from people who think they're SO openminded but they're the opposite. They're not thinking it through at all - just ready with a pot shot (Mini Pops? I'd say most people here weren't even born when they were a thing).

So it seems it's the promotion of the programme - "sexy" clothing (for pre teens), reference to twerking, rather than the programme itself. Of course this is wildly dodgy - it won't make anyone look like a crazy bible thumper to acknowledge it. To downplay it is weird - I don't think it means someone is a paedo. I do think however that it makes them seem like slaves to not wanting to look like prudes.

Slaves to group think smugness

Psychiatric Patrick

Podge_irl wrote: »

Pretty much no one has defended the artwork - they have defended the movie based on reports, reviews, trailers and interviews. Clearly some arseholes at Netflix US have misinterpreted the movie in a pretty mind boggling way.

The movie is exploring a topic that already exists, and is pretty much entirely the fault of the sexualisation and demeaning of women that adults pretty happily engage in. It is meant to provide a window into one of the consequences of those actions. It is supposed to make you uncomfortable and, hopefully, reflect on what is causing it.

You may as well complain about Beasts of No Nation being responsible for child soldiers.

I think Eric Cartman is talking about a certain type of people have reacted to the complaints about the movie. That the complainers may be misinformed isn't the point nor is what the film actually being about the pain in that either.

People jumped on the OP saying that if he sees sexualisation in the imagery (poster and trailer) that there must be something wrong with him. Ti deny thee was something wrong with the marketing campaign is madness.

As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

Eric Cartman

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I think Eric Cartman is talking about a certain type of people have reacted to the complaints about the movie. That the complainers may be misinformed isn't the point nor is what the film actually being about the pain in that either.

People jumped on the OP saying that if he sees sexualisation in the imagery (poster and trailer) that there must be something wrong with him. Ti deny thee was something wrong with the marketing campaign is madness.

As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

This. If Imake a film condemning child sex abuse im not going to make a child porn fil, upload it to netflix and say ‘everyone watch it, it should make you uncomfortable , watch a child porn and thinkabout how awful it is’

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But its not just trans kids is it, its things like this , a poster early on in this thread went so far as to say that the only reason the ‘right wing nazi types’ have an issue with this is because its a nice story about immigrant girls.

YOU used trans kids as an example, not me - I just pointed out where it illustrarted my point.

You'd have to take the nazi right-wing comment up with the poster in question, it wasnt me.

The left defended desmond a 10 year old child drag queen dancing in a gay nightclub for men calling out the ‘right’ as homophobes for opposing it.

There you go again!!
I'm left and I stated at the time that having this in a nightclub was MASSIVELY inappropriate and sexualised!

So your anti-left bias is confirmed - it's nohting to do with political stances.

Every time something morally repugnant happens that involves children and posters who would be labelled as ‘right wing’ give out about it, the usual faces on here come along to call them racists/nazis/homophobes and say they don’t see the issue with it and make up an alternative reason as to why we hate the child abuse thing.

Again with the genralisation.

The problem here is that you - personally - escalate every issue involving alternatrive cultures to a child abuse issue and then highlight anyone who doesn't see your viewpoint as a left-wing pedophile.

Sometimes it's NOT about child abuse!!
Not everyone who doesn't agree with you on childhood issues is a pedophile! Or even left wing - there's probably a lot of right-leaning people here who disagree with you.

This shouldn't be anything to do with politics. That poster and blurb is giving completely the wrong message, regardless of the film's content. It reads and looks like an old school porn video cover. About 11 year olds.

Sweet.Science

Its been clear for a number of years there has been a campaign to normalise pedophilia from certain parts of society.

Even the OP here suffered lashback for noting the poster was disgusting (which it is)

It seems if you highlight something you are the one with the problem

'how could you look at it that way'
'maybe its people like you we should be worried about'

So many horrible people out there but hey im sure im the one with the problems because i have the issue

nthclare

This thread stinks, absolute stinks and its just a prime example of what people are suspecting about liberals and lefties all along.

Wait and see what the liberals will be screaming for next, it'll be shockingly unsurprising.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nthclare wrote: »

This thread stinks, absolute stinks and its just a prime example of what people are suspecting about liberals and lefties all along.

Wait and see what the liberals will be screaming for next, it'll be shockingly unsurprising.

You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

i_surge

At the end of the day despite the optics of wokeness, netflix is a large organisation cynically exploiting the image of those kids for money.

I hope the kids and families at least got paid. I wonder generally about consent for these things, to have your image blown up worldwide as an 11 year old is not without side effects.

Not much progressive about that.

i_surge

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

There is a point though...i read back to see how the poster was "faked" and so on by a certain "right on" type.

Both sides can be as bad as each other. Too much ideology either way ruins the ability to think clearly.

TheValeyard

You know you've messed up when 4chan has the higher moral ground than you. They wont allow any pics of it on their site.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/4chan-bans-images-netflix-film-cuties-1526545%3famp=1

storker

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I'm neither left wing or right wing.

Is there a name for that?

"Sensible"

Eric Cartman

Jeffrey Epstein wrote: »

It's just a movie about girls wearing cute outfits and dancing and having fun with their friends.

Guys, chill out. Seriously.

With that username this is a hilarious post

keano_afc

Have only read the first few pages, but seeing people immediately jumping to defend the original image in the OP and claim its photoshopped is quite hard to believe.

If defending this noncery without even checking its veracity was your first reaction, you have some issues.

nthclare

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

You're just trying to do my thinking for me, at this point your comment is as useful as a butter knife trying to cut lead...

Although lead is poisonous so you can look at this and draw your own conclusion and not mine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

i_surge wrote: »

There is a point though...i read back to see how the poster was "faked" and so on by a certain "right on" type.

Both sides can be as bad as each other. Too much ideology either way ruins the ability to think clearly.

There are no "sides". Well, their shouldn't be.

Sweet.Science

keano_afc wrote: »

Have only read the first few pages, but seeing people immediately jumping to defend the original image in the OP and claim its photoshopped is quite hard to believe.

If defending this noncery without even checking its veracity was your first reaction, you have some issues.

Crazy . Even the name of it 'cuties'. Horrible .

But hey . If i think having children dressed up as dancers/strippers in sexually suggestive dance positions with the tagline 'cuties' is an issue then i am the one with the problems.

What a messed up world we are living in. But this country has previous i suppose

Podge_irl

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

I think a documentary would have its own issues re: exploitation of the children. Besides, the person is not a documentary maker - you may as well suggest they should have done an investigative journalism report in a paper. This is their medium and their way of tackling the subject.

Child actors are fully aware they are acting and they frequently are involved in things that are unsuitable for children. You have to give them some credit for being able to distinguish reality from fiction however.

Much of what the children do in the movie may not be "appropriate for children" but you are deluding yourselves if you think a) it is not happening on a large scale anyway and b) that adults at large are not hugely responsible for it. The entire point being made is that the kids are not even supposed to realise what they are doing is "sexual" as the concept doesn't necessarily even make sense to them. They are trying to fit in - and the question is supposed to be why has this become something they view as a way of fitting in. Saying this is appalling and inappropriate for children and we shouldn't see it is spectacularly missing the point.

Seemingly the marketing guys at netflix also spectacularly missed the point.

Gatling

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.


In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

What dialogue have they being exposed to not suitable for 11 / 12 year old actors playing 11/12 year olds ,
Don't know why you would imply that these actors have been taken advantage of and not paid for their roles in a movie