I can imagine moviebob doing the opposite because he can associate it with weebs and channers. Even then that'd be an irony in defending Cuties because it criticized how kids are sexualized despite the fact the film does it in a manner that ends up being untasteful to many viewers despite whatever intentions the director aimed for because having kids literally twerk on camera in sexualized outfits ends up being spank material for pedos and being gratuitous and tasteless in trying to get the message across.
To play devil's advocate, I could see an argument to be made that the explicit nature of the film was intended to make the audience uncomfortable and respond with disgust towards the actions portrayed. Plenty of films have used this tactic to get their point across, like Apocalypse Now showing the horrors of war and what it could turn good men into. I'm fairly certain the director did not intend to make softcore child porn and actually wanted to make a film with a message, though what that message was supposed to be is beyond me.
However, as many have pointed out, the difference between Cuties and other movies with explicit content is that Cuties filmed underage girls in a variety of risque situations, and it frequently did so in a way that could be considered sexual abuse. Most films do a better job of simulating what they're depicting, and even when they don't, it's with adults who know what they're getting into (most of the time, anyway). I mean, I get the difference between film and reality, and certain scenes could be merely acted out (like the infamous "main character takes a nude picture and sends it out" scene). But it was a conscious choice of the director to have these girls (and over 600 others in auditions apparently) perform inappropriate dance moves, probably for countless hours while they got all the shots they needed, and with gratuitous closeups on all of them. Even if we assume that their parents were on set at all times and were okay with what was being depicted, that doesn't make it okay, it just means that those parents probably need to be investigated too.
There were many ways that this movie could have been made without essentially producing softcore child porn. Have the actresses be adults who are able to consent to what they're doing. Age up the characters so it's not a bunch of skeevy shots of underage girls (I doubt the groundbreaking story would have been negatively impacted if they were young adults). Bring in body doubles for the dance scenes, or frankly just don't film them in such a disgusting way. But no, they went for the dumbest road possible, and the result is a film that can only really be defended by pedos and pedo shields.
Again, I get what the director was going for, but she was a complete tard when it came to the movie's production. Bob is an even bigger tard for continuing to defend it.
