🐱 Netflix Defenders Ignore Legitimate Criticism

CatParty

Since streaming platform Netflix released the movie Cuties, the Internet has been abuzz with controversy. Shortly after the movie came out, the hashtag #CancelNetflix began trending on social media, as critics objected to its overt sexual content involving girls as young as eleven — in other words, children.

In response to the public outcry and subsequent boycott campaign, Netflix ignored the substantive criticisms of the movie’s content, insisting that it is “a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up” and “a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.”



The trouble with that argument, of course, is that the film itself sexualizes young children, which is problematic regardless of the movie’s intended message. At the Daily Caller, Mary Margaret Olohan has chronicled all of the explicit content in Cuties, including young girls watching pornography, discussing oral sex, taking and sharing nude pictures of themselves, and learning how to strip dance.


That it isn’t immediately obvious to everyone why this might provoke a backlash is a helpful explanation of how such a movie would be produced in the first place and why one of the world’s most popular streaming platforms continues proudly hosting it.

Worse than Netflix’s halfhearted effort to brush the controversy under the rug has been the left-wing response to the entirely legitimate — indeed, necessary — criticism of Cuties. Instead of conceding that there are harmful elements in the movie or even acknowledging the validity of the public criticism, media outlets and journalists have embarked on a counter-attack.





Again and again, writers have conflated the eminently reasonable backlash over Cuties with QAnon, a group of far right-wing Internet conspiracy theorists who indulge in far-fetched and unsubstantiated rumors about, among other things, child sex-trafficking rings.


“Much of the criticism against Cutiesspawned from inaccurate or incomplete characterizations of the film — and the resulting narrative was that Netflix had produced a film aimed at enticing pedophiles,” wrote Alissa Wilkinson and Aja Romano at Vox. They went on to dismiss the controversy as having been fueled by false information supposedly peddled by QAnon.

Similar “explainers” popped up at left-wing sites such as The Verge, BuzzFeed, and Slate, all insisting that Cuties itself was entirely unobjectionable and claiming that the movie had been the victim of a right-wing campaign to spread conspiracy theories about pedophilia.



When Texas senator Ted Cruz, Missouri senator Josh Hawley, and Hawaii representative Tulsi Gabbard shared their own criticisms of Cuties on social media, they were met with derision from an odd coalition of progressives and libertarians, some of whom accused the politicians of “going full QAnon.”

For all of their emphasis on the importance of seeing the entire movie in order to understand it, the valiant defenders of Cuties show markedly little willingness to engage in a debate over its content. Instead, rather than addressing the controversy on its own terms or acknowledging the compelling arguments against sexualizing young children, nearly all of the defense has amounted to some version of, “Conspiracy theorists are attacking Cuties; if you hate Cuties, you’re a conspiracy theorist, too.”



Needless to say, this isn’t an intellectually honest argument, nor has it done anything to calm the outrage over the movie. If anything, it’s made matters worse, as understandable objections have been brushed aside in favor of claims that the Cuties controversy exists at “the toxic intersection of QAnon delusion and right-wing moral panic” — as if only conspiracy mongers or puritanical, repressed conservatives would have any qualms about depicting eleven-year-old girls in blatantly sexual ways.



The countless angry parents, for instance, who have canceled their Netflix subscriptions in the last week didn’t do so because fringe websites told them they should. They canceled Netflix because they can see — as can anyone free of the self-induced blindness of hyper-partisanship — that content bordering on soft-core pornography and involving children doesn’t belong on our streaming platforms or our television screens.

It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to have a problem with that.
 
I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion.

You know, funnily enough I immediately thought of Donnie Darko when I saw the porn-trailer/clips from Cuties. Like "Okay this is bad, but wasn't there something extremely similar with Sparkle Motion?" So I looked it up and, man, was I wrong. Sparkle Motion is fully covered. No skin shows. Cuties is just straight up softcore porn.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Just A Butt
Today, in 2020, they say it's not about pedophilia, it's about a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. I have a feeling that just in 5 years we will see the neo-libs openly defending pedophilia and telling everyone how people are too bigoted to express tolerance towards pedophiles (in case of Cuties, they completely deny the pedophilic content of the movie, but once the shitstorm is over, they will be more honest in their statements in the end). Why I think so? Because 5 years ago the same people told me no sexualization of children would accure in mainstream media, no matter how people are obsessed with sexual deviancy. It doesn't matter if you believe in a slippery slope theory or not, but the very fact that such a film was released on the most popular movie stream website in the world, completely bypassing censorship, shows in practice how far the Western society has gone.
 
Last edited:
I loved Love Death and Robots. I loved Altered Carbon. I loved Dark. Why does Netflix have to turn around and release Cuties after those quality series came out?
 
From what I heard from lil' Benji on it, sounds like the film is basically calling the oversexualization of children a core tenet of a baseless and morally drifting society in which children are raised by predators on the internet, and the purpose of the film is to instill extreme unease and discomfort to shock complacent, tech-illiterate parents. To point out that children will, without understanding, imitate the behavior of adults and adult content that is broadcast to them without any concern - and which to them seems like a sure-fire way to gain attention and popularity, lacking anyone to serve as a filter or a parent.

But the purpose of the marketing was clearly to give stiffies to pedophiles.

I'm getting the impression that the authors of these articles might be appalled if they found out the point of the film is more that a morally baseless society preys on children than that the film is praising the sexualization or "sexual autonomy" of children. I guess they only saw the marketing material.
The argument should probably be as to whether this shock, discomfort, and borderline-to-just-literally-exploitation is necessary or useful to evoke this point, not 'but what if the child consents BRO????'
 
Because 5 years ago the same people told me no sexualization of children would accure in mainstream media, no matter how people are obsessed with sexual deviancy.
Pretty Baby came out in 1978, whoever you're talking to is a moron.

Wait, that had a French director, too.

Then again, Playboy published a nude spread of Brooke Shields that was shot when she was ten years old.

Mainstream media has been sexualizing children for decades already.
 
This article's just straight up wrong. Clearly you can see here several prominent white supremacist figures helping to further QAnon's narrative:

This is why we need more brave souls like mrgirl to elucidate how this film's an artistic masterpiece merely being targeted by a terrible hate campaign.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Iwasamwillbe
From what I heard from lil' Benji on it, sounds like the film is basically calling the oversexualization of children a core tenet of a baseless and morally drifting society in which children are raised by predators on the internet, and the purpose of the film is to instill extreme unease and discomfort to shock complacent, tech-illiterate parents. To point out that children will, without understanding, imitate the behavior of adults and adult content that is broadcast to them without any concern - and which to them seems like a sure-fire way to gain attention and popularity, lacking anyone to serve as a filter or a parent.

But the purpose of the marketing was clearly to give stiffies to pedophiles.

Exactly. If the point is to shock normal people to attention about the world kids are living in these days, it could have been done just as effectively with animation. There are countless examples of animated movies that handle serious topics and succeed in reaching the disturbing levels required to clusterfuck the viewer's emotions. Normal people are going to be instilled with enough uneasiness and discomfort just because of what they are viewing, there is no need to add IRL children sexualization going on behind the scenes. Behind the scenes stuff, "making of" stuff, most people don't care about that.

If I've payed enough attention to what @Secret Asshole is always saying, it's that the only people who are benefiting from the behind the scenes stuff are the real paedos, because what really gets them off is not so much the pre-pubescent booty shaking on screen, it's the booty shaking combined with the very fact that real kids were used, their innocence was displayed, that on top of the child actresses in the film, hundreds of other kids had to shake their hips in front of adults for the casting process. You don't get that when you make an animated film (or maybe you do if you consider the possibility of the artists using children as models for maximum accuracy, but for my ethical hypothetical let's say they don't). Nobody is possessing anyone's innocence when everything is being drawn and no minors were harmed in the making of this film.

I hate to go full conspiratard and all that, but I'll be damned if this isn't some straight up Moloch shit being unapologetically rubbed across everyone's faces.
 
Last edited:
This article's just straight up wrong. Clearly you can see here several prominent white supremacist figures helping to further QAnon's narrative:

This is why we need more brave souls like mrgirl to elucidate how this film's an artistic masterpiece merely being targeted by a terrible hate campaign.
His comments section is getting raided by people who are clearly not intelligent enough to understand that the little girl with blonde hair is hot.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Burning Fanatic
Or that a "dislike" could represent another person's honest opinion, and not be a deliberate troll or bot.

Hahaha, ok Russian bot.

C2D747B6-93C3-4DF7-A06B-C1FF41604F87.png
 
Yes, it's not so nice when the fourth estate turns on you is it? The truth doesn't matter to them and has never mattered to them. They'll keep calling you a villain and spinning everything until they make you into one.


Well if they want a villain I'll show them a villain! Behold my giant weather machine!
 
This being made in France doesn't surprise me in the least. Bit of power-leveling here but I taught English at a middle school in France for 2 years and during this time they lowered the age of consent to 15. While I was at the local bar one night a bunch of guys in their mid to late 20s were discussing how the age was lowered in a positive manner, and knowing I worked at a middle school said I must be quite pleased since I work so closely with 15 year old girls. Needless to say I was rather fucking disgusted. That must be apart of that sophisticated European culture that us brutish North Americans could never hope to comprehend.
 
Back