Can we talk about Netflix "Cuties"? Men--dads--tell me it's no big deal

submitted by WrongToy from self.GenderCritical

So fam, when I'm not here, I hang on an nfl board that is 98 percent male.

When this trailer came out, I'm like just no. Really. You can see the "cameltoe" and ass crack on these 11 yos through their spandex while they simulate sex through their stripper outfits.

They're like, well the director meant well and if you only WATCHED the movie wrongtoy, you would see the director's message!

My response is I don't care what her message is or whatever plot twist. This has been done before starting with Taxi Driver in the '70s, which fueled Brooke Shields, which fueled Traci Lords. We have been down this road before and not that anyone would confess it, but the whole male population had to be indemnified once it was discovered that the majority had in their possession, or had viewed, actual CP in the TL movies. I went over how damaging this was to kids of my generation and that was, obv, way way before Netflix and Twitter and all of this.

If you want to make an anti-pedo movie, then don't promote pedo. That's like me abusing animals to show how messed up it is.

These men themselves have daughters. Who they don't allow to see this film. But they think it's ok for THEM to see it.

I'm disgusted, truly, but open to other arguments because over there, well I am down for it. That's my hill. No pedos. Cancel anything that's pedo.

all 52 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SharpTomorrow 40 insightful - 1 fun40 insightful - 0 fun41 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Here is what I think about that movie.

I get the message and the intent, and the director is a black woman who call herself Muslim and feminist.

However, the problem is that the movie and its director claims "denouncing sexualization of female children", but they do exactly that in the process, sexualizing children for profit in a commercial movie.

sorry for the lack of better link but here is link to a clip in the movie:

https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1303908536553017349

An adult made these kids dress like that, and instructed them to dance like that, for a movie that is essentially a commercial product that has been sold to distributors like Netflix. people are making money out of this. Keep in mind that the actresses in the movie clip are 11/12 year old.

So while I'm OK with the message, there is something extremely unethical with the use of prepubescent actresses in order to depict sexualization of children.

I'm not sure what the radfem position is, but to me it's engaging in the very thing the director claims they fight against and one cannot do that and not call themselves a hypocrite.

Unfortunately, the debate has already been politicized (partisan) and my position is now deemed "right wing" by people I know on the left, which is again, unfortunate.

In my opinion, the director should have chosen adult actresses to convey the exact same message without being controversial.

[–]vitunrotta 36 insightful - 9 fun36 insightful - 8 fun37 insightful - 9 fun -  (0 children)

Muslim and feminist.

Oxymoron 🤓

[–]InvisibleWoman 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh god oh god oh god I watched that clip and I just wanted it to be over. I need to watch some puppies cuddling or something or wash my eyes with bleach.

Why is it so long? And so explicit? She could have chosen different camera angles, focus on the audience, ANYTHING, over crotch shots of children who are simulating intercourse.

Disgusting. I'm getting off the internet for today.

[–]ColoredTwice 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly this!

[–]blackrainbow 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

How can you change people's minds if you don't shock them? Sometime people need strong images

[–]InvisibleWoman 38 insightful - 1 fun38 insightful - 0 fun39 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Do we need to force children to perform these shocking images that will undoubtedly be masturbated to just to make a point?

[–]blackrainbow 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

that will undoubtedly be masturbated

So we're not allowed to produce anything with children in it because someone will wank off on it? That is so puritan, no wonder these complaints mainly come from the US

[–]InvisibleWoman 31 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 0 fun32 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, I am saying we shouldn't intentionally sexualise children.

I am not from the US or America at all so I don't know what you mean. I'm from a very sexually liberal society, but we have to draw a line somewhere.

[–]blackrainbow 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

It's difficult and controversial, I think Woody Allen's films are more dangerous than Cuties even if their teen characters are little or no sexualized at all. I think it depends on the director's goal honestly. Also, why aren't we discussing the film's message more instead?

[–]WrongToy[S] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the message is irrelevant.

It does not matter if there's three minutes of this and 97 minutes of them saying it's bad. It's the oldest porn scheme ever, and was employed before porn was legal and accepted by adults.

Look at this. In not any universe is even one minute of this ok, and keep in mind this took multiple weeks to film with real life kids. https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1303908536553017349

[–]penelopekitty 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have you fucking watched the clip? It is disgusting.

[–]SharpTomorrow 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How can you change people's minds if you don't shock them? Sometime people need strong images

This is not a good faith argument. This is sophistic.

[–]CosmicFarmPrisoner 27 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 0 fun28 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People are still falling for the “it’s art!”, “it’s supposed to make you uncomfortable!” excuse? “A WOC made it! Context!” Apparently black women are incorruptible? Disgusting.

Look at the industry this came from. It’s obviously part of the greater push to normalize pedophilia.

[–]NorfolkTerrier 26 insightful - 2 fun26 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I've heard that the movie is supposed to be uncomfortable to watch, but for many people it's uncomfortable in another way. It's not just "Wow, it's gross that these fictional characters feel like they have to express themselves like this." It's gross because the director and a crew of adults got a bunch of actual young girls to do all these things, shot the scenes in a sexual way, and distributed it to a mass audience that will include pedophiles. Obviously any video of a child can attract some sick people, but a creating a sexualized scene of a real child seems like too much. It might have worked better as a novel, where the text could tell the same story without a physical depiction using actual children.

In this case I assume the director was trying to do it for art against sexualization of girls, but she's also French and their intellectual class has had a pedo problem for a long time. This should remind us that there's a real issue behind this, not all adults even agree on the basic statement "pedophilia is bad."

[–]MarkTwainiac 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This makes me wanna go back and read Upton Sinclair and "graphic novels" that depict abuse without involving RL people. There are many ways to expose society's abuses of the young and vulnerable without committing those very same abuses on the young and vulnerable help you've hired to act out the story you want to tell.

[–]WrongToy[S] 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah. Like Chris Hansen. The decoys were adults. Everyone got the damn point of "To Catch a Predator" and further men aren't fapping to it. Well maybe some men, because you know men.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good example and points.

[–]our_team_is_winning 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Earlier today I was thinking about Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver" and Brooke Shields in "Pretty Baby" (which she totally defended as an adult). When I was a kid, "Taxi Driver" was new, and my dad used to walk around the house quoting lines from the film "I don't know nobody named Iris" etc. -- I was little, I had no idea what any of that was about. Isn't Jodie Foster TWELVE in that? "Oh, but Travis Bickle wants to SAVE Iris" -- could he not as easily have wanted to save an ADULT prostitute?

<That's like me abusing animals to show how messed up it is.> TONS of animal abuse films. TONS. Of course they didn't do it to show it was wrong. They just did it because animals-shmanimals.

[–]InvisibleWoman 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And women shmemen and girls schmirls. Like we matter...

[–]anxietyaccount8 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wasn't even able to watch those scenes. It's indefensible.

If you don't think pedos will enjoy watching it, you're very naive.

[–]owmygenderfeels 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can criticise the sexualisation of female children without giving pedophiles something to put in their spank bank.

Seriously, I've seen child dancers whose performances were unnecessarily sexualised, and it was creepy as hell, but this is so much worse. The footage of their performance just looks like what you would see if a pedophile started a strip club. The dance moves are just straight out of explicit stripping routines and mimic porn moves, and the costumes are intended to show off their crotches and arses while the dance moves draw focus to these areas. And if that's not enough, the fucking camera work makes it clear whose eyes we're seeing this through, just in case it wasn't obvious enough already.

Men who think it's no big deal should be regarded with suspicion.

[–]Aloudmeow 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, and when did putting your hand to your crotch and stroking it, or humping the floor become legitimate “dance moves?” Im sure the Alvin Alley Dance Company is twirking right now to express a choreographer’s political ideas. Not.

[–]Lady_Montgomery 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Child sexual exploitation is child sexual exploitation. Men in general love the idea and would, if they got the chance to get away with it, rape children. They salute this movie because it's one step closer to legalizing child rape.

[–]worried19 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I saw the movie. The point of the film was to be horrified by the environment these kids are in. At least that was my take on it. Watching it was was an uncomfortable experience, which was what the director intended. To shove the premature sexualization of these young girls in the audience's face and get them to question a society that puts these girls in that position.

I viewed the movie as a condemnation of our society. These little girls mimic what they're told is adult female sexuality, but they have no idea what they're mimicking. Society's view of female sexuality is twisted and perverse, and to watch 11 year olds act it out points out how truly perverse and false it is. It's not just that it's premature, but completely pornified. This is no woman's natural sexuality.

The kid in the movie is going after what she's told is cool, no matter that it's false and dangerous. Her religion is patriarchal, but the wider world is just as patriarchal and oppressive, even though she's too young to realize it. There's no freedom in pornified sexualization. She can't escape patriarchy either way.

[–]WrongToy[S] 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Folks are telling me i'm not educated until i watch it. Well I unplugged netflix b/c basically i'd watched what i wanted to, and now they're saying that i should pay them to be "enlightened."

I saw what I needed to in the clips. Wanna make a anti-pedo movie, then contact your local PD for appropriate blurred footage, don't get stables of freaking 10 year olds to audition for twerking videos, select 30 of them, and put them in makeup.

This is NOT woke and it is NOT progressive (not I am not saying you are saying they are). This is the same crap that launched Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I'm not saying you need to watch it, just giving my take on the movie.

I'm not familiar with the other films you mentioned, so I don't know how they compare to this one.

[–]WrongToy[S] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Pretty Baby came out in 1978 when Brooke Shields was 12. It was one of those "awareness" films as i take it--I never saw it because I'm about her age and it was rated R. I can tell you though that it certainly incentivized the curiosity of girls in my junior high, and trust me, no lack of men who'd just see that.

Blue Lagoon came out in 1981. i was 16 and snuck in and we're watching this double shag their bf while the mom cries tears of joy and we're like wtf, my mom would kill me. But the point is that never should have been released. Fucking tears of joy at being boned in full view of your parents. Hell no.

Child sexuality is a thing. It is a thing for them, not a thing to make R-rated movies for and profit from. It leads to things like Traci Lords.

Traci Lords is a former porn actress who started in 1983, when she was 15. She appeared in Penthouse when she was 16. She had a busty figure but her face was that of a child. When the feds finally found out, there was an uproar, and that launched the get pedos out of movies crusade.

Men have enough fap material as it is. It is bad enough with these "minor attracted persons" openly saying they're into 1-10 year olds on Twitter, and being followed by 'adult attracted minors" who claim to be 13.

It's bad enough. No more freaking cameltoe from 11 year olds. That is nauseating and sick and I don't care what this woman's wokeness quotient or her ethnicity or her race is. She could be Jerry Falwell Jr. and there'd be the same excuse, which is that there's no excuse.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I'd have to watch those movies to have a comment on them. I looked them up on Wikipedia, and the Pretty Baby one sounds disturbing. Can't tell about Blue Lagoon.

[–]Thatstealthygal 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Blue Lagoon is a movie in which Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins, who were both young (but he wasn't AS young), play shipwrecked kids who grow up on an idyllic island, discover sex, have a baby and eventually take a boat out to sea and eat poisoned berries to suicide. It's based on an Edwardian (I think) novel and it's both uncomfortable and hilariously bad.

I think OP means Endless Love, in which Brooke Shields plays a teenager who has sex for the first time while her super liberal mother watches joyfully (but unseen); later the boyfriend gets obsessed with her and it all goes horribly wrong.

There was a DEEP fascination with underage sexuality in the 70s, for certain.

Oh and Pretty Baby is DEEPLY disturbing. It's not an "awareness" film as I remember it - it's about a photographer who becomes fascinated by the women who work in a brothel at the turn of the last century, including the child daughter of one of the working girls whose virginity is sold to the highest bidder.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Maybe I am misremembering, but didn' t the director of Pretty Baby try to have Shields naked (or have a graphic sex scene) for it? I remember reading something like that, and that it wasn' t done only because the other actress in the movie (Susan Sarandon?) told the director to fuck off.

[–]Thatstealthygal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wouldn't be surprised. I'd forgotten that the storyline develops so that Brooke's character forms a sexual relationship with the photographer who simultaneously treats her like a father, and she's all of 12. It's extremely gross.

I think she's naked on a silver platter in the "auction" scene but in such a way that nothing is really seen.

[–]WrongToy[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Y'all are triggering my memories of long ago Time magazine and my local paper going into how that was uncool at the time (1978). By 1982 however that same columnist was harping openly about how Shields was hot. Shields was 15 at the time.

I really dislike Shields, because when she came of age in 1985, she had a responsibility to step away from the "no one stands between me and my calvins" ads, not get more invested in them given that she was ONLY a celebrity because of her underage pedo-adjacent routine.

When Shields appeared in SVU as a grandma, I had to LOL. That woman has now had 37 years to acknowledge that what happened to her also affected an entire generation of young girls.

She has never acknowledged, let alone apologised.

[–]Thatstealthygal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm misremembering - the "auction scene" is online and she's wearing a dress that's basically like a fancy chemise. It's a horrible scene because it's like she does kind of understand but also has no real idea.

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for explaining. Yeah, the Pretty Baby movie sounds incredibly disturbing and not something I would ever watch.

The Blue Lagoon doesn't sound terrible. But I'd have to actually watch it to get an accurate opinion. Both films are pretty old, and neither appears to be on Netflix.

[–]Thatstealthygal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Blue Lagoon is basically just terribly, terribly cheesy with dreadful dialogue delivered by two very pretty young people. Their "childlike" discussions about puberty are cringemaking. But it's not that "adult" really. Brooke Shields' hair is artfully draped over her boobs the whole time and she had body doubles for any actually nude scenes (eg when swimming).

[–]WrongToy[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Neither of those CP adjacent films needs to be anywhere near distribution. Nor endless love (ty to the one who pointed that out--one of many CP adjacent films I insisted on getting into since it was all the rage and I as a child hadn't grasped CP yet).

Their mention here is a historic artifact that does not need to be watched by a new generation, ever.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So you think those movies should be banned? I get the problem with pedophiles, but don't pedophiles seek out any movie with a child in it? They don't need to go out and find a special movie. They can watch a commercial or any innocent kids' film and see the kinds of things they want.

[–]WrongToy[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Difference between a kid doing normie stuff in movies and kids doing what was seen in this movie.

[–]chiiwa 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The common arguments I've seen in defense of this movie are: "It's all real, check it on TikTok! Children do all of those things and worse - the film raises awareness of this. It is intended to make you uncomfortable!” And also: “The movie is a coming of age story, based on the director’s own experience! The main character is just confused, because her culture is so repressive of female sexuality. She doesn’t have any good role models. You should sympathize with her!"

Well, first of all, some children do all kinds of horrible stuff, including rape and murder. Should we film a rape scene with 13-year-olds to raise awareness of this?

Secondly, this is the same arguments actual pedophiles use when talking about children or teenagers. No, they are not all "hormone-driven" or "sex-crazed" once they hit puberty. This is a projection that adult perverts make.

And even if some young teens are genuinely interested in sex, I'd argue that the film has nothing to do with actual female sexuality. For all its suggestive footage, there is no sex or pleasure (like, masturbation attempts or anything). The provocative behavior of the girls in the movie is all a show and is mostly targeted at adult men! The film seems to enforce the incel logic that women view sex is a tool, and learn to abuse it for selfish reasons from a very young age. Puberty has nothing to do with it. These girls do not want sex, they want validation. They could’ve been even younger and do this shit, so their age is not a justification.

Of course, the movie can be regarded as a feminist critique”. The main character thinks that “being a woman” means either slaving for your husband (as tradition says) or using sex to get stuff from creepy men (as pop-culture says). But realization destroys the whole point. The film should be judged for contributing to the problem it supposedly fights against: excessive use of male gaze, prolonged erotic scenes, girls acting in a weird sexual ways amongst themselves (as if for the film’s audience), performing to hip-hop songs with pornographic lyrics, etc. And, of course, for exploiting child actresses, who now have erotic footage of them available on a major streaming service.

[–]WrongToy[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some young girls are sex driven when they hit puberty. i mean, i was.

That is something to be explored--if it needs to be--with children of one's own age. Adults don't need to see that for their own titillation or awareness. The role of adults is to sit down their children when they get their HPV shot and say look, you have feelings, and that needs to be explored--if it must--with kids of your own age.

[–]blackrainbow 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

IMO Netflix completely flunked the marketing campaign, from the trailer and the poster it seemed a completely different movie.

[–]3MistersAndAMissy 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don’t forget Taxi driver also whetted Hinkley scary obsession with Jodi Foster. We only remember he tried to kill Regan but forget how terrifying this must have been for Ms Foster

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I haven't watched it. I don't know if I will, but I still have some thoughts on what I know about it.

Many young girls learn to dance and perform gymnastics routines in outfits identical to the ones in this movie. Some of them also learn to do similar moves that they pick up from music videos and emulate on their own. Yes, kids really do enjoy performing & thrive on being praised! And yes, there is a very real danger of exploitation in that.

All the filmmaker did was show some things that are, unfortunately, pretty normal in our culture—pushed too far for shock effect on screen, but sadly not terribly surprising to me. And, because I assumed so many people are already desensitized to this, I was actually really glad to see the outrage & discussion about this film. I just wish the anger was focused more on what the movie reveals to us, instead of the fact that the filmmaker and Netflix dared to show it.

It's not only the director that you have to question about whether it was right to have kids perform in this film. There was surely a choreographer, along with other crew, and the girls themselves look like experienced dancers who have been training for some time with the support of their family.

Although it was over the top, let's not pretend that the director had these girls perform in some way that doesn't exist in mainstream acceptable society, with proud supportive mothers cheering them on. This could've readily been another documentary or a trashy reality show like so many others about cheerleaders or child beauty pageants, but would've lacked the same impact. Showing these girls twerking, but then simultaneously seeing them for who they really are—devouring gummy bears & just being innocent kids—is what I think makes this so deeply uncomfortable & impactful.

Is it any different when it's a children's dance troupe performing like this on a local arts theater stage for family entertainment? Or is it only exploitative when it's exposed to a wider audience on Netflix? This kind of performance isn't some clandestine pedophilia lurking in the shadows: you can find similar (but tamer) recordings from shaky camera phones shared with many "likes" on facebook.

I don't really want to defend the film, but I'm reluctant to condemn out of hand, too. Are people only upset because they were made to acknowledge how common this precocious sexualization really is? If so, then I'm at least happy for that.

[–]WrongToy[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but the pornographic twerking leads a whole other dimension to it. And if that needed to be depicted, it needed to be done, say, with 18+ models shot through a blur filter at a distance with the focus on the parents looking on, aghast. It's a whole different thing, too, because it's not just some anonymous cheer/dance/gym whatever video on TikTok, it's mass produced for any man with a tv set and ten bucks for netflix.

[–]Shesstealthy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I watched it last night and I did think it was a good film. This is me watching, considering the dance scenes:

Well there is nothing here that hip hop crews don't do except the girls are dressing sexily.

Now the main girl Ami is watching a video of adult women doing stripper stuff and twerking and she's entranced. Ugh. Don't watch that video little girl!

Now Ami has joined the Cuties. She's showing her moves. Ok ok OH NO WAIT WHAT ARE YOU DOING NO NO SWEETIE DON'T HUMP THE FLOOR no not that finger in the mouth thing OH dear God no.

It's very similar to the scene in Miss Sunshine where the little girl uses the stripper moves her grandfather's girlfriend taught her, in terms of making you want to rush and warn the kid that it's not for kids. Except these girls are more confidently adult in their presentation and the scenes go on too long.

Watching it I saw a girl without solid guidance about how to navigate being a girl in a way that works for her. It's either early arranged marriage or wild girl freedom that in her hands becomes overly sexual. She doesn't know the rules the way her friends do.

At the end she finds escape in childlike fun.

It's a difficult film but a few cuts would work.

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Here's probably the most balanced and rational discussion I've seen on this movie so far, from someone who actually took the time to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psJwJRpJMes

[–]owmygenderfeels 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree with this comment:

In almost every instance, I’d agree that in order to have a valid opinion, you have to at least watch the thing you’re criticizing, but for something that is potentially pedophilic, I’m all for prejudiced critiques without having viewed the content, simply because the act of viewing the content gives the manufacturers of said content a “win” anyways. And in a world that values quantity of quality (i.e. the story will just read “this is what is trending on Netflix”, without contextualizing that many of the ppl who have caused it to trend were overwhelmingly mortified and have since cancelled their Netflix accounts) it encourages others to make similar content, thus contributing to the increase in more potentially pedophilic content.

It would be like me purchasing an offensive album, so that I can burn it as a demonstration against said offensive album. It still counts as another unit sold at the record company. Purchasing it is counterproductive to my cause, and by doing so, I become part of the problem and not the solution.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Point taken, but in the case of the reviewers in the youtube video they took pains to watch a torrented copy of the video, presumably for the very reason you mention. The danger in something that is as you say "something that is potentially pedophilic" is that the uninformed critiques may in fact lead to a dogpiled popular conclusion that a viewing of the source material does not actually support.

I am not interested in the movie in any way and as such won't comment outside of the observation that Netflix's use of the poster frame was inexcusable.

BTW, if you decide to watch the YT video, there are no clips of the movie shown.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For balance, here's another video from someone who leans conservative and also watched it. Just a caution that this one contains some clips from the movie, though the ones I saw seem relatively mild. However, I played most of this in a tab as audio, so I didn't view most of it. https://youtu.be/EGNWM2OQdxE