Netflix's "Cuties" - The Preteen Sexual Objectification Equivalent of "Funny Games"

Commander X said:
Members of "You didn't understand the film correctly!" video essay Twitter are currently defending this film with the excuse "rape/exploitation of children is portrayed in other films too". Like Pulp Fiction or Taxi Driver.

PERSON WHO WATCHED A VIDEO OF A BEARDED MAN SAYING "Sky High (2005)" IS FASCIST PROPAGANDA FOR AN HOUR: "Um, if you think "Cuties" is bad, then you better stop liking [unrelated thing that isn't nearly as graphic or disgusting]!"

I like how "Taxi Driver" is their big film they bring up like the subject matter is portrayed in any similar way at all.
Click to expand...
A lot of fantastic movies have fucked up shit in them. The exploitation genre of films is based around exhibiting fucked up shit in the most tasteless way possible. Only it's very clear that Cuties isn't an exploitation film. It's not that portraying fucked up shit is fucked. It's that portraying fucked up shit as whimsical cutesy girl power bullshit is fucked.

Like, imagine A Serbian Film, except all of the base, disgusting shit that Milos partakes in is backed up by the music from the house building montage from RDR2.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Nguyen Van Phuoc and 7 others
An interesting reply from a Moviebob tweet defending cuties:
1599908224024.png
https://twitter.com/jesushc49575508/status/1304678497688981505 (Archive)

"11-year-olds twerking isn't that bad!!!".
 
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
  • Autistic
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Silence of the Troons and 13 others
Styx doesn't want to vlog about Cuties but he got no choices.

Some youtubers dropped these comments.
paul smith
'No such thing as bad publicity.'
Cuties: 'Hold my beer'.
Click to expand...
Aleksandra Ostrowska
What occured to me yesterday is that the same people who wanted - and managed - to ban adult models at sports events because it "objectifies" women, are now all ok with mainstream pedophilia. The left has all the things backwards.
Click to expand...
The Alabastard
I have actually watched Cuties. (I prefer to discuss from an informed standpoint.) There were multiple scenes with *CHILDREN* who have been trained by adults in how to spread legs, rub their crotch and breasts, jerk their ass and dry hump for a camera where shots linger on the ass, crotch, breasts, and through the legs. I neither care what the supposed larger context of the film is nor what the supposed message is. I care that young girls were sexualized and exploited to make the film. There is no "context" where production of such a film, exploiting these children, can be justified. I hate the "this is about the dangers of child sexualization" argument all the while sexualizing children. That's like me filming myself beating my cats as an anti-animal abuse PSA. The logic don't track.
Click to expand...
mollendinousa
New Yorker article reads: "cuties the extraordinary netflix debut that became the target of a right wing campaign". You heard that guys. The left is calling being anti pedophile a right wing position. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Toolbox and 8 others
This is another case of the libs not being able to separate fantasy from reality. Kids will eventually authentically come up with the idea of doing sexual stuff.
But these girls are actual human beings and not their characters. People who were directed to perform acts with sexual tones in ways that someone else thought up for them. It's not their own idea. They are not performing said acts on their own terms and because it's a movie, by definition said acts were directed in a way that was for the viewing pleasure of others.
It's like when a 16-year-old can legally have sex (with some limitations regarding the partner's age), but not do it for cameras and for others to use the recording for their own purposes.

To claim it's depicting a real thing necessary for coming to age is disgusting. I sure as fucking hell feel lucky my first awkward sexual expressions were never done with the involvement of strangers, directed and coordinated by other strangers, recorded and forever up for public viewing. Just that thought makes trauma a 100% given.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Cpl. Long Dong Silver and 22 others
Petronella said:
Kek, a political group I'm in on Facebook is defending this movie because it's freeze peach to depict 11 year olds grinding on each other and uploading nudes on social media.
There are people on there unironically saying that it violates muh freedoms to say people shouldn't have sex with middle school aged girls.
Libertarians, not even once.
Click to expand...
They're as libertarian as Romney is a Republican.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: sixuglymidgets, spiritofamermaid, Cpl. Long Dong Silver and 20 others
Robert Sanvagene said:
Nobody could seriously be dumb enough to believe that 98% of folks have alt-right ideologies. I'm sure as shit not alt-right.
Click to expand...
That's what they want. They want to be as humanly disgusting as possible to push people further to the alt-right. It's like BLM, BLM's main purpose was to stop racism, but some of the people who follow them just made people that weren't racist before, racist now thankfully to all the looting and shooting.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Cowboy Kim, Nguyen Van Phuoc and 4 others
Petronella said:
Kek, a political group I'm in on Facebook is defending this movie because it's freeze peach to depict 11 year olds grinding on each other and uploading nudes on social media.
There are people on there unironically saying that it violates muh freedoms to say people shouldn't have sex with middle school aged girls.
Libertarians, not even once.
Click to expand...
Why the fuck are you in a political group that advocates pedophilia?!
 
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Nguyen Van Phuoc, Qajinima022 and 2 others
Therealhomor said:
Why the fuck are you in a political group that advocates pedophilia?!
Click to expand...
Definitely not now, and that shit's been reported.
But this also brings up an interesting point: there's no question the Left is trying to normalize pedophilia, but there are plenty of people on the other side who genuinely believe in diddling kids to own the libs.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Return of the Freaker, Uncanny Valley and 2 others
SageInAllFields said:
This is on the frontpage of Reddit now, everyone is pissed off

The pogging continues:
View attachment 1591015
Click to expand...
I'm less concerned with what we saw on camera than I am what happened during the filming, audition and general production of the film. I'm deeply concerned some Epstein/Weinstein shit went on behind the scenes.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Cowboy Kim and 16 others
I didn't want to talk about this trash movie, but it actually came out and it was even worse than we all feared, so let's talk about it.

I am unleashing all of my autism here. You have been warned.

By the way I haven't seen this movie, and I'm not going to, which I'm explaining more in the Criticism sperging.

Ultimately, Cuties is an art piece. In that vein, the idea is kind of similar to American Beauty, which was incredibly shocking for its time as well. I actually remember American Beauty very well, despite never having seen it, because I was first exposed to it as a teenager when it was put on a Greyhound bus by someone who had a DVD of it on a long trip. I didn't have any headphones so I couldn't listen to the sound, I barely paid attention to it. But then the rose scene happened and my eyes flew to the screen like "holy shit, that girl is so much younger than him, what are they doing?"

The female body is alluring, mysterious and seductive. Its artistic value is at its greatest when you are coy with it. There's a great That 70s Show reference here.
"You know who should do a swimsuit issue? Playboy."
"Why would Playboy need to do a swimsuit issue?"
"Hey, sometimes I like to be teased."

This sort of song and dance between the clothed and the reveal is erotic and artistic all in itself. It has its own enticement and its own appeal that pornographic material ultimately cannot satisfy. That's why porn doesn't just skip right to a shot of a girl naked on her knees. A bit of build up is actually better for the experience. That's why strip clubs are popular as well. Yes you have dancers who get naked eventually but they start out fully clothed for a reason.

With that in mind, the argument that these girls aren't directly nude, therefore it isn't pornographic is absurd. Perhaps men are too polite to spell this out in public to women, and perhaps women don't like to confess to the game in public either. But we all understand this. Dancing is foreplay. Dance was always an act of courtship before it was an act of expression. It was a precursor, a time of exploration. To dance with a woman other than your wife in public was daring, risque, wrong. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why it's customary for a bride's father to get the first dance at his daughter's wedding. I mean, I can see how families have made it a big personal happy moment but I'm not sure how it started that way when dancing between a man and a woman has always been so seductive.

More importantly, there is no logical aspect to revulsion. What I mean is, if our gut reaction is to find this absolutely disgusting and offensive, we don't need to justify it to anyone else. When they come at you and say "why do you find this expression of female sexuality so disgusting?" you don't need to answer them. Emotions don't make sense, they just are. Know that the other person feels exactly the same way as you do and is trying to rationalize it while feeling that way.

Of course, it goes without saying that disgust, revulsion and offense can and do have artistic value. You can absolutely make some sort of grand statement by portraying something shocking and offensive, and you should. But there are lines that should not be crossed and this is one of them. There are ways to express your idea without being graphic. And I understand that the graphic nature gives far more bite to the point you're making, but that doesn't matter because you aren't creating art in a vacuum. There are actual actresses here, young girls that you have exploited for your art. And regardless of the purpose of your filming and exploiting them, you have done so. And that is wrong. You have hurt people, young girls, for your art. That is not acceptable, no matter how much better of a point you were able to make because of it.

I don't use the term "kike" very often but Alyssa Rosenberg exemplifies what it means to be a kike. She came out and criticized the backlash of people who were upset at Cuties and told them they needed to actually watch the movie before they started arguing against it. The reason for this, what might seem like a rational and calm response, is incrementalism. I'll explain it more in the cultural sperging but ultimately, people like Rosenberg don't need you to agree with them when they expose you to this kind of thing. They just need to expose you to it. Even if you see it and it gets you just as angry as you thought you would be, you've been exposed. Now, the first step of incoluation has happened. Then the next time it happens it's less shocking. And then again. And eventually you don't really accept what has happened but you tolerate it because you've run out of anger and it's just kept happening.

You do not need to view child porn to criticize it, in the same vein that you do not need to hear a killer's motives to "understand" them before you condemn them. This argument, the one that calls for gathering more information before you condemn anything, is the foundation of what anthropologists call "cultural relativism". The idea is that an anthropologist needs to expose herself to a culture and its practices before she can genuinely justify and condemn the behaviors that take place inside it.

Cultural relativism came out as a response to critics who said anthropologists were moral relativists, people who would only condemn their own culture and felt uncomfortable or unjustified in condemning other cultures simply because they were the other and they felt like it wasn't their place. No no, the anthropologists said, we only observe it and then we make judgments on it.

It's a cute idea, but here's how it happens in practice: a professor of anthropology that I spoke to, when I gave an example of acid attacks in Afghanistan as something that an anthropologist would potentially condemn after having learned about it in its proper context, did not explicitly agree with me. Just so you guys know, Afghani men will throw battery acid on women's faces when they divorce them, specifically to scar and burn them for life so they never find happiness with another man. Not only does it disfigure the woman and take away her beauty and cause real pain for the rest of her life, but it also serves as a sign that she is disobedient and she would leave you, a warning to other men. Any reasonable American with American values would say that is violence without a justified reason against an innocent person to enforce unequal power structures between men and women. And yet, the professor simply gave me the go ahead to use it as an example that I would cite, without committing her own judgment one way or the other.

So you see, even when these academic types actually do their research and try to understand things in their deeper context, they still don't condemn things unless they can go against their own people to do so. You know how many feminist anthropologists have either stated "there's two sides" or even outright defended female genital mutilation?

I don't need to see the child porn to say that child porn is bad. And neither do any of you. Stick to your guns.

Progressives genuinely think that history and culture move in one direction, which is their direction. The reason they think this is because they are very careful with the way they present things. They move it slowly and try to push and nudge against what you think is wrong or improper. They incrementally introduce you to things that shock and disgust you. Then by the time those things are running rampant, you don't even care anymore.

You know that 18% of pregnancies end in abortion?
https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ (biased source but they reference the CDC)

We've had over a million abortions every year for ages and its only recently started to come down. Abortion used to be something people were up in arms about and angry about. Bill Clinton only managed to convince people to calm down by saying we needed to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare". Now look at it. People joke about abortions. They talk about being childfree and whether they "should" have kids, ignoring whether that involves abstinence because of course they're not going to give up sex just because they don't want to have babies. How did that happen? How did things get so bad that mothers actually agreed to let their kids be filmed in pornographic ways to make a point about exploitation of kids being bad? If exploitation of kids is so bad, why would you consent to it for your own daughter?

The truth is, in France and elsewhere, people aren't so worried about kids anymore. The police in Rotheram certainly weren't. If America and Turkey are the only places left who will take a stand against this inoculation then we need to. We need to make it loud and clear that art is not an excuse for pedophilia and put these Hollywood scumbags back into their hole where they belong.

Apparently Cuties is being subjected to "rightwing attacks". The LGBT community, which is largely leftwing in nature, has been fighting against a growing perception that pedophiles are accepted among them and that pedophiles are trying to co opt their narrative and argue that non-offending pedophiles aren't sick in the head, they just have a sexuality. They try and say that homosexuality was once a psychiatric disorder, therefore pedophilia isn't a real psychiatric disorder.

Leftwing people, real people, have been trying to keep pedos away from them for a while now. It isn't rightwing to hate pedophiles and want to protect kids. But the media is trying to set it up that way and score political points.

If the rightwing genuinely is the driving force behind an attack against Cuties, that is bad for the left, because we are correct. This is not something that anyone should be defending, least of all journalists, but they are, and they're doing so to try and own the cons. Just let the right be right for once. And if you don't want them to get any sort of clout, join them. Make it a bipartisan thing and say "here is a leftwing perspective on why child porn is bad!" or whatever. When it comes to kids, the fight isn't worth it. Aren't there some things we can all agree on anymore?
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: ScenarioOfTLoU2, spiritofamermaid, Aberforth and 24 others
  • Agree
Reactions: Aberforth, Crinoids, cr1nge and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back