11
chit-chatWhat's a moment you had with a girlfriend or wife that made your heart sing?
The bad is, well, really bad.
I want to know the moments that made your eyes light up like the forth of July, and your heart swoon,
Mine's a bit goofy, I work a pretty strenuous job and was having a really rough night. My then girlfriend at the time, who was on the receiving end of my grumpy texts. Ended up showing up at my work with a little bundle of the meal she had cooked for herself, plate and cutlery included - We ended up parking on the riverfront, and watching the sun go down. She let me talk my stress out, got to shed a few crucial tears, and then we went home. Me feeling way better than when I started, I really appreciated her for all that she was, and I hope she's fairing well out there,
I intend to watch it and find out if it is as bad as it absolutely seems to be.
If it is, I intend to cancel it and campaign about it to my friends and family.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but it really does seem like they are trying to push a pedo agenda.
To be clear, gay rights is not the slippery slope that started this! I am angry to read that is being tossed around
‘Sexual Identity’ is the shield that pedos are trying to hide behind THIS time. Watch the Shirly Temple movies if there is any doubt that this has been tried before through other means.
I agree with you that pedophilia has been around in hollywood for a long time, and that in that context Cuties is nothing new.
When it comes to the other subject...who is tossing that insinuation around? Do you mean in general, or are you seeing it here on this forum?
Just to be clear -- I've stated before that Queer Theory has very obvious arguments in favour of pedophillia in its founding documents. That's not up for question, it's right there for all to see. That being said, 'Queer Theory' is NOT the same thing as LGB rights! The fight for LGB rights existed long prior to Queer Theory taking hold in academia. The issue that I personally have is that the 'TQ' part of the acronym is heavily based on Queer Theory -- that is how gender ideology developed, via queer theory, and this idea of transgressing the boundaries of what is considered normal and acceptable by society. That's why a lot of them say 'not queer as in homosexual, but queer as in 'fuck you!' (I think that's the phrase they use?). Because in their understanding, being 'queer' is not about same-sex attraction, but about performing deviant behaviour. I'm sure a lot young people who ID as 'trans' or 'queer' don't know that queer theory has arguments for pedophilia embedded into it and would be upset to learn that. But as an ideology, that aspect has definitely been there from the beginning.
Of course, Queer Theory has nothing inherently do to with homosexuality or gay/LGB rights. If anything, it stands completely at odds with it and should not be lumped together in the same movement at all. It seems no wonder that the 'TQ' have been 'colonising' the whole movement and changing what it's really supposed to be about, since otherwise they would have a marginal place in it at best, instead of being front and center as they are at the moment.
So, in my understanding, it is the 'LGBTQ+++' that is currently being used as a cover for normalising pedophilia, but since the present movement is entirely about trans, and accepting trans-everything, that's what is currently being used as the 'shield'. Everything from the drag queen storytime readings, to the trans'ing of children (lowering age of conset and removing parental say in what is done to these childrens' bodies), to Stonewall pushing gender ideology to be taught in schools (at very young ages)... all of it makes me extremely uncomfortable as so much of it is about pushing boundaries, rather than setting them. It confuses children about gender and sexuality, rather than truly educating them, and imo is basically grooming (not to mention in some children, gender ideology will result in them being 'converted' from being gay/lesbian to being 'straight' members of the opposite 'gender').
Imo, the trans lobby is only just one aspect of the 'pedo agenda'... obviously things like this Cuties film are another. And I'd say that owes a lot to porn culture and how young kids are having access to that from younger and younger ages.
Thank you for this educational reply 🙂 I really don’t know much about Queer Theory per say.
I have never heard allegations that pedophilia being slippery slope of lgb rights here at Ovarit
I’m speaking of crap I hear other places online, as well as in my regular life. ‘We all said it would be bestiality and kiddy diddling if we let the gays marry’ type of logic. The same people who think Shirley Temple movies were from a ‘purer time’. I remember asking my grandma if all kids wore such short clothing during that time. She told me it was debased Hollywood, so they knew.
I had read that the original gay movement originally had a place for pedos. I think this was also supported by Aln Ginsberg. However, sensible gays and lesbians put the Kaibosh on it.
I knew it was part of Queer theory but looking at old Hollywood and the Book Lolita makes me think it is a general societal ill. It should not be laid at the feet of the LGBT community specifically.
I have never heard allegations that pedophilia being slippery slope of lgb rights here at Ovarit
Oh, good! I was just making sure I hadn't given the wrong impression via my previous comments in other threads. Hopefully that didn't come across as too patronizing, I just wanted to clarify, not just for you but in case anyone else reading might have been confused.
But yeah... I think sadly there are probably pedophillic adults (usually men, but sometimes women) who will try to use ANY movement as a cover (I mean, just look at all the Catholic churches and other types of religious organizations with this problem). A lot of the stuff in the 1960s was influenced by the 'sexual liberation' / 'free love' movement in general.
Someone had recently posted this article about the situation in Germany in the late sixties/early'70s [caution, bit of a disturbing read]:
I kind of feel like that's the whole point of this marketing campaign... getting people to give them money to see if it is as bad as they heard it is.
I already have a Netflix subscription. I think we got it tue first year it was out.
Do they not get more revenue the more people watch their film?
Good question. I’m sure they get noticed but when it loses them monthly subscribers, it’s probably not the good kind.
My understanding is that viewership of a given program doesn't increase their revenues (depending on whether they purchased the rights outright, or licensed it the way cinemas do, they could actually lose a bit of money with high viewership since users pay only a flat fee) but that viewership does drive future programming - as do people cancelling their memberships. So even if not watching Cuties or cancelling your membership doesn't hurt Cuties' funders or Netflix directly, it makes them less likely to pay for such filth in the future. Which is still good.
Not me. I saw the movie and thought the message was clear. If I was offended enough to cancel Netflix because of something they put on, it would be that babysitting club show with a transitioned child. Or that 365 Days movie that glamorizes kidnapping and rape and BDSM.
While the messaging may have been clear the objective of the movie still transgressed into CP by literal definition. There are other ways to get this message out there and using children to put out this message is child abuse.
No, it was not "literal" child porn. There are definitely uncomfortable moments but calling it pornographic would be very disingenuous.
Agreed. I saw the movie and I'm stunned anyone could think there was a legal basis for calling it pornography.
I'm not being hyperbolic. By US DOJ definitions the imagery doesn't have to be sexually explicit. Just suggestively so. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography
Clothed minors performing sexy dance moves, esp in the context of a dance competition, is not CP. Regardless of how offended you personally feel or how broadly you want to interpret the law, it is just not a reality. There is no legal precedent and the probability of a reasonable court ever convicting this film is close to zero.
Not me. The film clearly condemns the sexualisation of girls and certainly doesn't deserve the absurd amount of hatred it's getting.
I agree, it condemns both the sexualisation of girls and the violence of the religion towards women. Before it went on the american Netflix and that youtubers started to throw the movie under the bus, it was well received.
And yet to create the movie, they had pre-teen girls twerking and stroking their groins on camera. That's objectively harmful to those girls.
Look, I don’t believe that style of dancing is appropriate but you need to understand that this is already the new normal for young girls in our society. You need only look through TikTok to see preteens do all you’ve mentioned plus more. Or just take a look at what a modern dance comp in USA looks like for 8 YEAR OLDS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyhl4cWHXaQ
The film shows nothing beyond what kids are already exposed to and mimicking every day. At least the director is trying to use it for some good and call for change. I know she also took many precautions to create a safe environment on set for the girls, including child psychologists, using composite shots for the dances, having them play little games like pretending to be animals, etc.
Honestly you can argue that it’s harmful for child actors to do any kind of mature acting - saying vulgar lines or even doing murder scenes. It just baffles me that people are more concerned with cancelling this film than calling out the far more problematic culture it’s trying to highlight.
I'm not currently subscribing, but I did watch Lost Girls on Netflix earlier this year, about a mother fighting to find her daughter who went missing while in prostitution and so wasn't taken seriously by the police. Based on a true story.
I wouldn't boycott Netflix, because they carry a wide range of stories. I think it makes more sense to check reviews and only give our time and energy to stories that support us, so that they carry more of those and fewer of the ones that do more harm than good. We will always have storytelling with us, because we are human, and I think it is more productive to have conversations about the kinds of stories we tell and how we go about telling them than it is to boycott a commercial storytelling platform that happens to feature a story that afaik it did not commission and that has been supported elsewhere (the entire film making culture; Sundance Film Festival).
For example, did you know that sex is negatively correlated with box office in mainstream movies? Controlling for budget does not make sexualized content profitable either. Sex Doesn't Sell Nor Impress (I did this research myself and can assure you this is true using multiple methods of controlling for budget. Of course the budget data isn't as complete as the box office data is, since budget is often not reported. But still.) And yet they keep adding it in, and the amount of soft porn in some market segments seems to be getting worse.
Did you know that acting classes groom people to not set healthy boundaries because "Art"? (I'm not sure about filmmaking classes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did nothing to show performers as people rather than puppets, vessels for the filmmaker's vision.)
We have child labour in entertainment, probably causing harm to them more often than not, yet where are the protests? Research on outcomes?
Actors are not protected under occupational health and safety standards (kissing etc.). They are sometimes basically told who to get intimately emotionally involved with as part of their job. ("This is going to be your gf/bf for the next few months.") There's still a link between performing in mainstream entertainment and prostitution (though at least we don't still have studios putting B-listers on contract to work in brothels/as escorts when they're not busy on set, since we don't have the contract system anymore).
And so on.
Cuties is a symptom of a bigger problem, and not just with Netflix. On the other hand, quitting Netflix and spending more time in the real world might be better for people overall.
Heather Heying & Bret Weinstein watched it so we don’t have to. Look into episode 44 on YT if you want a synopsis. Nutshell: bad and wrong; failed at objective.
I do like their podcast but am not a regular listener, I will check out that episode! Thank you!
I did the same exact thing last night. I put other - stop putting up pedophilic content.
I'm not cancelling it cause I have joint subscription and share with someone else. But I have stopped using it for the time being, and hoping they might take that movie down.
Write them an email too, write them on Twitter, you can't really tell them too many ways they lost your business. Each manner of getting in touch will go to a different person.
This is the next movement - to state that since kids the age of 8, 9, 10, 13 can decide to get hormones and surgeries, they can decide that they want to have sex with whomever they choose. Kids may think this now, but at least it's illegal. There will be a push to start to lower the age of consent. Otherwise, kids deciding that they can have surgery to remove body parts is hypocritical, no?
This is really unhealthy in so many ways for children and adolescents. All of it.
And I'm really liberal except on trans issues, issues like this and late term abortion.
Coming back to the thread as I belatedly remembered something -- while I completely understand those who are cancelling Netflix, if anyone in the UK is still keeping their subscription, a very good 'antidote' to Cuties would be the three-part miniseries 'Three Girls'. This is a very sensitive and well-made portrayal of the Rochdale 'grooming gangs' case, and manages to tackle a very awful subject without objectifying the teen girls being portrayed on-screen.
Nope.
It's a POC woman who directed the film, one of the few we have in France. That doesn't say that "by essence" her film will be okay, but it should give everyone with a modicum of sense a pause, to check where the outrage is coming from (in this case, right wings and racists people).
While the alarms came from this side of the political spectrum, it could still be true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So you need to either look for explanations from the author, the communication around it and if enough things add up to think maybe it's not what it seems, watch the film.
Things such as the author saying the real poster for the film was one with girls in normal clothes, with bra over it.
Things like her saying she didn't agree with Netflix on how the communication around the film should be done (after all, it's the first film directed by a black woman, Netflix just doesn't have to care, at worst people are going to blame them a bit, but it's the black woman who will deal with the massive shit coming her way)
Thing like people not watching a film about how the sexualisation of girls is more and more present in our society, all the while being okay with fucking porn category named pre-teen.
The whole controversy is the stupidest thing ever. That some feminists are among the one criticizing the poor woman just add insult to injury. Society just feels weirded out by the mirror reflection she showed us. Good. Maybe instead of blaming the messager, we could change our ways. But that takes courage, and people like to hide their head in the sand/doing what's easy instead of doing what's right.
I will continue to pirate netflix as I have done since aught seven.
How do you pirate netflix? A friend's username/password?
Ha ha no I think that's just mooching? I was talking about torrents etc.