Has political correctness gone too far sometimes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m confused on how they can delete those scenes and have the movie still make sense. According to that article, the entire plot of the movie rests on the dog willingly allowing himself to be violated so he can win the dog show and go on to rescue the panda. If they delete all references to the inappropriate touching, the plot will no longer make sense.

I’ll have to judge it in person to see if the reviews are accurate, but I’m not going to seek it out. I’ll have to watch it if it comes out on Netflix so I can preview it before the kids do.

This movie could have been funny for kids if they had just focused on the macho K-9 dog who doesn’t want to go through make-up, hair-styling, and posing, but no, they had to focus on his privates. Face palm.
 
Political correctness is the desire to censor based on mindless or pharasiacal offense taken at something. Children’s movies with explicit content will corrupt young minds and therefore should be banned, because they cause actual harm.
 
If this was "benefited’ I hate to imagine what it would have been if it’d been done sober! Even the narrator seems to think the story is a snooze fest.
 
Yeah, if that description is accurate, I can’t imagine who thought a children’s film about ignoring it or worse yet having a pleasant fantasy when some stranger touches your privates was a good idea.
It sounds like something straight out of John Kricfalusi, whose work is not for young children and who was recently accused by two women of grooming them and abusing them when they were under age.
 
Really kids think that way?
If that’s the case then there is a cause for concern.
My understanding was that kids just like childish/gaudy humour without relaying it back to their own lives.
 
I very much doubt that the director or writers intended that, but I don’t think it is hysterical at all to say that (a) this is the kind of thing a predator could use to normalize sexually abusive treatment or picture-taking that most children would normally not accept except for the kind of introduction that teaches them that the rest of the world sees it as light-hearted humor, (b) it is the kind of thing that small children will try on each other, because they don’t know better and (c ) some kid is going to try this with his dog and he’s going to get himself bitten for his trouble. It wasn’t a gold-level joke in the first place, to put it mildly.

(Yeah, it could be a girl who tries this on the family dog, but at the risk of being politically incorrect, I’m betting on it being a boy trying it.)

Of course, if the Church had ever given this movie a black mark for sexual themes, the cries would go up over over how those religious people are once again being “puritanical.”

As Screwtape explained in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters:

“…In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as “Puritanism”—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life…”

"…Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people “good” by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be “priggish”, “intolerant”, and (of course) “Puritanical”. (Letter 10)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day (well, if you are old enough to remember what a dial clock is!!)

If the Church’s sense of propriety agrees with that of the politically correct, I’m OK with that. This movie doesn’t stay within the propriety appropriate for small children. They’re going to laugh and make jokes about their pets’ behinds, but they do not need adults teaching them that this is the kind of humor they ought to emulate.
 
Last edited:
ShowersofRoses said:
I’m confused on how they can delete those scenes and have the movie still make sense. According to that article, the entire plot of the movie rests on the dog willingly allowing himself to be violated so he can win the dog show and go on to rescue the panda. If they delete all references to the inappropriate touching, the plot will no longer make sense.
Click to expand...
A small child could see the willingness to refrain from getting in the mud for a day as an unnatural act of heroic self-denial for a canine. They don’t know that show dogs have their backsides waxed–heck, I didn’t know that anyone ever did that!–so they will not miss having that part of the arduous show-dog grooming process left out.
 
Last edited:
Havn’t children’s film throughout time sometimes often been a bit inappropriate though?
For example,while not outright crude,I’ve always found Charlie and the Chocolate factory to be somehow a bit dark.
 
Last edited:
I agree that I think the movie still would have worked totally fine without it.
To me,the whole sex abuse/pedophile connection seems to go a bit far though because weren’t the producers just looking at things through a kids eyes and appealing to what would be funny to the children?

Wouldn’t a child just think the scene was funny because it was naughty/silly(from a child’s perspective)?
Relaying it back to themselves and making that connection would have been the last thing on the kids minds I would have thought, because they are still innocent and havn’t been exposed to concepts like pedophiles yet.

At th same time,I don’t have kids yet so maybe my understanding is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
Havn’t children’s film throughout time sometimes often been a bit inappropriate though?
Click to expand...
This, if accurately reported, is more than a bit inappropriate. It’s giving children a wrong idea of how to react when someone tries to touch them inappropriately. We do our best to teach them to say “NO!” and run away. This teaches the opposite.
And yes, a child will identify with the dog who’s the hero in the movie.

My son was approached in a public restroom when he was about 10 or 11, by someone who “just wanted to touch” him. He refused. Imagine if he’d been brainwashed by a similar movie to think it was okay? He was traumatized by the encounter, which we learned when he screamed and freaked out when a mechanic approached our car a week later while he was sitting in it alone.
Very bad idea for a movie, I’m glad parents objected.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear that happened to your son.Its a concern that there’s people out there that prey on children.
So kids actually see something like this (dog scene) and pick up messages about ok behaviour?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I’m being naive,but couldn’t sometimes it have genuinely been unintentional and not “sinister”?
Eg:I read a moms blog where she said that her 6 year old daughter said that scene were her favourite in the whole movie so maybe the screenwriter was just tapping into a kids mindset?
 
Yes,thankfully lol.
While not on the same level,dark isn’t really suitable/appropriate towards kids either though.

I guess what I don’t really fully get is while adults who are aware of social constructs etc could potentially see this “dog scene” as pedo,would a child because a child hasn’t been exposed to life’s situations (and potential dangers) so isn’t it to them just “innocent” in a sense?
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
Maybe I’m being naive,but couldn’t sometimes it have genuinely been unintentional and not “sinister”?
Eg:I read a moms blog where she said that her 6 year old daughter said that scene were her favourite in the whole movie so maybe the screenwriter was just tapping into a kids mindset?
Click to expand...
You’re free to think what you like. I think you’re being naive.

Like I said, people who develop TV and movies for children love to sneak stuff in that pushes sexual or drug boundaries. I also know that huge numbers of people involved in the arts and entertainment industry are just plain weird.

I don’t have kids so I don’t come at this from a “think of the children” overprotective mommy perspective. I do have a lot of friends involved in the arts and we have sat around as adults and discussed in person or on web pages how something about a certain cartoon gave us weird thrills or feelings as a kid and we didn’t understand until we were grown up what was actually going on in the cartoon. There is one cartoon series from when I was about 9 years old that was essentially a bondage and fetish show disguised as something else.

Kids will pretty much like anything trendy that’s put in front of them. They are too young to “know better”. Pedophiles take advantage of this by telling them that this and that behavior is okay. The adults need to “know better” for them.
 
Rozellelily said:
Really kids think that way?
If that’s the case then there is a cause for concern.
My understanding was that kids just like childish/gaudy humour without relaying it back to their own lives.
Click to expand...
My kids and I avoided crude and gaudy humour as much as possible.It saddened me to see others watch and read it then relay in back into their own lives Roze.
Lots of authors were writing very simple kids books with toilet humour ,which some teachers encouraged children to read.Meanwhile my sons were reading thick triologies .
 
Rozellelily said:
so isn’t it to them just “innocent” in a sense?
Click to expand...
Yes, kids are innocent and don’t make value judgements the same way adults do. When I think back on some of the TV shows that I watched when I was a kid, e.g. “All in the Family” and didn’t know any better, I’m appalled.

The problem is that innocent kids can’t differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and showing questionable behavior in a kids’ movie is bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top