Netflix’s “Cuties” Is So Much Worse Than We Thought and the Leftist Media Still Defends It

[Cathoholic]

ROMANS 3:8 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

.

Even Pelosi’s daughter gets it.

.

Netflix film ‘Cuties’ is morally indefensible: Girls should never be sexually exploited to get a message across​

You can’t perpetrate an injustice in order to expose an injustice.

Fri Sep 18, 2020

September 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Most of you will already have seen (or read about) the backlash to the Netflix release Cuties , a film about a dance troupe of pre-pubescent girls filled with sexualized imagery, close-up crotch shots, and other disturbing content. #CancelNetflix trended on Twitter for days. Netflix stock began to tumble. . . . At least we could all agree that this went too far.

… Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine Pelosi, for example, tweeted this: “…from a customer and former ADA in SFDA’a Child Abuse-Sexual Assault Unit: ‘Cuties’ hypersexualizes girls… no doubt to the delight of pedophiles like the ones I prosecuted. Cancel this, apologize, work with experts to heal your harm.”

… Tulsi Gabbard . . . Netflix, you are now complicit.”…

. . . These long think pieces attempting to defend the indefensible did precisely the opposite of what they were intending to do . . . Defending child porn. . .

. . . “moral panic.” I’ve seen several on social media actually claim that conservatives got this film precisely wrong —this is not a film that sexualizes children, they say, but a film that exposes the problems with the sexualization of children. After all, the film is about a girl from a conservative Muslim family who joins a twerking dance troupe . . .

. . . What these Cuties defenders are claiming is that you can perpetrate an injustice in order to expose an injustice. If you show a film about a murder in order to expose what happened, for example, the re-enactment does not feature an actual murder. When you sexualize little girls to point out that sexualizing little girls is wrong, you are actually perpetrating the thing you claim to be condemning. . .

…the child actors were exploited not only in the sexualized behavior they were paid to perform onscreen, but also in the lines they were told to memorize. . . . Dreher notes that in one scene, the girls are watching porn (or pretending to) on a cell phone in a bathroom. As they watch, they describe to one another what they are watching—and the sex acts they discuss are vile. . .

These children had to memorize this dialogue and perform it on camera. They also had to learn how to stroke their crotches, twerk, put their fingers in their mouths suggestively, and move like strippers mimicking vigorous intercourse. The actors are children. Simply to play their roles, they had to have their innocence taken from them by the filmmaker . . .

Bold mine.

Netflix film ‘Cuties’ is morally indefensible: Girls should never be sexually exploited to get a message across - LifeSite

 

[OraLabora]

I’m French Canadian. I don’t shock easily. Yes the scenes are lewd. The article however, contextualizes nothing. I had to go to French sites to have a more balanced view of the film. Without the film’s context, not some Breitbart commentator’s, it’s impossible to fairly assess the merit… or not… of the film, and the necessity…or not… of the lewd scenes to reinforce the film’s social message (yes, there is one, and contrary to what many here think, it is not to promote the sexualizing of children but rather to condemn it).

It still sounds to me like the right looking for any excuse to bash the “left”.

I’m neither defending, nor condemning the film. I haven’t seen it, I’ve only read the “context” from reliable sources in France like Le Monde (left-leaning) and Le Figaro (right-leaning and generally pro-Church), the latter which calls the US right’s crusade against it a “misunderstanding”.

Isn’t this just another variant on McCarthyism which sees, instead of a commie in every closet, a pedophile?

BTW what is your working definition of pornography? I’m pretty sure that real pedophiles aren’t interested in this film, they can find far more explicit material, unfortunately, on the Dark Web. For the record, this is the definition in the Catechism:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

In my opinion, this definition is in fact too narrow. Technically, by this definition, a Playboy centrefold isn’t “pornography”. Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly is sexual exploitation.

I think this whole kerfuffle is in fact a clash of cultures. Try this description from Le Figaro for better context (my translation):

Raised in France in a family of 10 children from two mothers, Maïmouna Doucouré also addresses the issue of polygamy in her film. “in a way, my character in Mignonnes is torn between two feminine oppressions. That which her mother inflicts on herself by accepting being in a polygamous marriage, and another she finds by searching for a so-called freedom in which she loses herself”, according to Maïnouna Doucouré’s analysis. Thinking herself freed from the family straitjacket through dance, Amy adopts a “bad girl*” character and the sexy looks of rap culture, without realizing she has a price to pay: the loss of her innocence".

Stéphanie O’Brien, Le Figaro, Aug. 17 2020

*an expletive was used instead of “girls” but it got my post blocked. Reissued without the expletive.

Seems rather more balanced than what I read on Breitbart.

 

[Cathoholic]

. . . .

If I responded to you point-by-point, I would get my post removed because I would be explicitly stating what is in the movie.

. . . .

OraLabora . . .

It still sounds to me like the right looking for any excuse to bash the “left”.

I wouldn’t know OraLabora.

I’ve never thought of protecting our children as something exclusively to the “right”. I never reduced it down to mere politics.

.

For everyone else.

Look at the blurred pictures, and the articles and check it out for yourself.

The conclusions are obvious.

This is child pornography. The moviemakers have these little girls crotch-grabbing and pelvic dithering.

What is this (?) . . . if not “simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties”.

It is child porn alright. And you don’t need to view it to come to that conclusion correctly.

CCC 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors . . .

Bold mine.

Edited.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m not going to respond to insults.

 

[Cathoholic]

OraLabora.

If you think I am insulting you (I tried very hard NOT to), I will go back and edit my post.

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions from what you have written.
I think your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Cathoholic]

A sample of a lengthy and excellent movie review by Lauren Southern.

If interested in reading the entire review see here:

Cuties: The Profanation of Creativity. | Human Events | humanevents.com

CULTURE​

Cuties: The Profanation of Creativity.​

You don’t need to sexually exploit children to criticize sexually exploiting children.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Lauren Southern

September 14, 2020

Cuties has been trending on nearly every social media platform for days now, due in large part to outrage over its depiction of elementary-age “dancers.” To spare giving this monstrosity anymore views, paint a mental picture of children gyrating to Cardi B’s WAP, in skin-tight cheerleader outfits while touching themselves. The outrage around the film’s publicity could hardly be surprising, then.

As a mother—scratch that, as a sane human being —my instinctual reaction after I came across a short excerpt from the film was complete and utter disgust. And, with no apparent means to do anything about the existence of this film, I did what people do best when we’re angry, but useless. I went on a tweetstorm, making it known how revolted I was at the paedophilic content and obvious exploitation of children.

Of course, I genuinely assumed my take was bipartisan. Disgust for pedophilia generally uniting even the most partisan voices. Yet, to my shock, I immediately got pushback.

Others repeatedly claimed I just didn’t understand “WHY it was made,” and that this film was somehow “bringing awareness” to a serious issue.

Further responses read, “You’re taking the most controversial part of the film and making it everything the film is. How do you know anything without seeing it?” Now, I’m fairly certain there isn’t any context that could excuse the creation of softcore child porn . . .

. . Even if you completely removed the scene of the girls’ dance competition, the whole movie is one of the most useless, degenerate attempts at creating an audience through shock value. There are no deeper themes or meaningful character development, nothing of value whatsoever. I genuinely wanted to be wrong here—but after having watched it (so you don’t have to), I’d go as far as to say that the online hysteria actually does not go far enough. . . .

. . . there is absolutely no reason for these girls to have been cast as 11-years-old. The entire film could have easily taken place in high school, with a cast of adult actors that, for some reason, still look like children . . .

. . . The next day, Amy goes to school, where she encounters peers who are, for some reason, permitted to dress in leather miniskirts and bralets despite being in elementary school. . . .

1/2

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2

. . There’s even a slow motion scene where they go shopping and throw all their purchased lingerie in the air. . . .

. . . This girl doesn’t need Katy Perry routines; she needs social services.

Does she get them? No. In fact, there isn’t a single redeeming character in this entire movie. There’s no overall lesson, there’s no deeper character development, there’s no attempt to resolve the implicit tension between the two cultures. Instead, the film just depicts this utterly stupid (and apparently intractable) false dichotomy where being a woman means having absolutely no autonomy outside of your husband’s will, or only being able to expend female autonomy by debasing yourself.

This false dichotomy plays itself out in Cuties in the most troubling ways, such as children stripping and uploading photos of their genitals on the internet. Oh, I didn’t mention that? Yeah, the main character also uploads a photo of her genitals, literal child porn, to the internet. This should be a huge deal . . .

. . . Incidentally, this scene completely undermines the director’s claim that the film is a commentary on how social media grooms young girls to act sexually before they’re ready: Amy comes up with this idea all on her own. In fact, her more westernized, more openly “slutty” friends complain that now the other students expect them to do what she did. Social media didn’t make her do it . . .

. . . From start to finish, Cuties is based around sexualizing these children at every turn. There are dozens of scenes featuring this cohort of young girls gyrating to explicit music as if they work at a strip club—often for seemingly no reason at all. Nor was there any reason to deliberately zoom in on these girls touching themselves, or on their butts and breasts, in sequences that add absolutely nothing to the plot of the film. When these “dance” scenes come on, the filmography becomes indistinguishable from child porn . . .

. . . The creators of Cuties could not conceive of a story outside the box of traditional tropes and two-dimensional characters. Like Amy, who was not allowed to deviate from her “traditional” Islamic upbringing. So instead of learning, finding new and different influences, or developing herself, she just becomes a child stripper who stabs her classmates. It’s best described by Angelica, the “mean girl,” who explains that she dances in order to try and get her absent parents’ attention; to make them see that she has “talent.” But, of course, they don’t, and she doesn’t—nor do the people who concocted this. Like the child pornography (i.e. “dancing”), the film itself is nothing but an arid cry for help.

American existentialist Rollo May once said, “if you wish to understand the psychological and spiritual temper of any historical period, you can do no better than to look long and searchingly at its art. . .

. . . I would not class Cuties as cinema. It is utterly without redeeming social value. 0/10, would not recommend.

Cuties: The Profanation of Creativity. | Human Events | humanevents.com

 

[ThinkingSapien]

BTW what is your working definition of pornography?

as I understand the legal criteria for CP this film doesn’t check the boxes. But some of the scenes and scenarios are disturbing. It reminds me of the pageant scene (think Jonbenet Ramsey). Having little 4 and 5 year old girls adorned with makeup come out and strut for a beauty contest isn’t CP, but nonetheless I found it disturbing and inappropriate.

But as for Netflix, while they didn’t produce the film, they did distribute it. And as a consequence a significant number of people cancelled their Netflix service.

 

[OraLabora]

As I said I haven’t seen the film. I did see the scrambled pictures linked by Cathoholic. I agree they’re lewd and inappropriate.

I do believe however that the producer did intend to send a social message against the hyper sexualization of children. Perhaps she felt she had to add shock value to get that message across. I do think it’s an important message to convey (along with the other message against polygamy).

Could the message have been just effective with less lewd dance scenes? Such as shooting the scenes from the neck up, or out of focus or with less lewd moves? Perhaps.

I deplore however, that this has become a sort of left vs right issue. I think both right and left can and should deplore the hyper sexualization of minors. The film apparently, according to reviews, attempts to do just that. I take the charitable view that I don’t think the producer deliberately attempted to create CP, but that the result was, in the end, inappropriate.

I don’t know if anyone here has seen the movie “War Witch”, a Canadian film about a (female) child soldier in Africa. It was pretty shocking as well, but I don’t think anyone could say that it anything other than a condemnation of the exploitation of children. I think Mme Doucouré’s film was in the same spirit, but somehow it comes across differently.

 

[Cathoholic]

OraLabora . . .

I think both right and left can and should deplore the hyper sexualization of minors.

I would have thought so too. Now I am not so sure regarding many on the left. (Pelosi’s daughter is a notable exception here to the leftist response favoring this child porn via re-definition, ends-justify-the-means, or attempts to falsely politicize child porn as a pre-text for acceptance of this porn.)

OraLabora . . .

The film apparently, according to reviews, attempts to do just that (“deplore(s) the hyper sexualization of minors”).

Parenthetical mine for context.

The film does not do that.

The film contributes to sexualization of minors.

The film producers actually abused minors (in my opinion)
by putting them in these roles allegedly to fight abuse.

This is a self-contradiction.

The “reviews” that you read are wrong.

The movie is child porn and it is trash.
People responsible OUGHT to be arrested and jailed for making this.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As I said I haven’t seen the film. I did see the scrambled pictures linked by Cathoholic. I agree they’re lewd and inappropriate.

I saw the film after hearing about it on NPR, but before there was outrage. Reminded me of a past incident when going through a village on another continent. The resident showing us around the village also took us to see some of the cultural dances. These dances included some kids that I would estimate were 11-13 years old learning some dances that were part of their courtship rituals; the kids learn the dances early. We were told when they are older they go before a town elder to get permission to court someone for marriage and these dances played some role.

One of the dances they started to perform had a lot of gyrating, twerking, and what we evaluated as simulated sex. We didn’t let them finish the dance and instead engaged in offering a cultural exchange of our own in letting them know that we value and protect children, and that as part of that protection we try to keep children shielded sexual matters and from being sexualized. I found that experience disturbing.

I deplore however, that this has become a sort of left vs right issue.

Welcome to the World News forum. Everything is a Left™ vs Right™ issue. We can only speak about things in the most polarizing of viewpoints and terms. individual position or nuance have no place here.

 

[OraLabora]

The “reviews” that you read are wrong.

I quoted the producer herself. She says the film is semi-autobiographical as she too was raised in difficult circumstances, a polygamous family. I will reserve judgement until I see the entire film and the non-dance scenes which I hope provide some context. That is if I see it. It is not anywhere near the top of my priority must-see list.

 

[gam197]

So Christine Pelosi is more conservative than her mother on this issue, that is interesting

I quoted the producer herself. She says the film is semi-autobiographical as she too was raised in difficult circumstances, a polygamous family.

So we have a woman producer who seems to have been traumatized by her upbringing, how does polygamy relate to Cuties.

Christine Pelosi is fighting against the film, this gets very interesting.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I quoted the producer herself. She says the film is semi-autobiographical as she too was raised in difficult circumstances, a polygamous family. I will reserve judgement until I see the entire film and the non-dance scenes which I hope provide some context. That is if I see it. It is not anywhere near the top of my priority must-see list.

The filmmaker has made two films that basically tell the same story. Her first film was a shorter one telling the story of a young immigrant girl who lives with her mother in France awaiting the arrival of the husband/ father, and then when he does show up he brings his new, young, poly wife, causing his young daughter and her mother to be upset. The first film did not contain all the business about the young girl making questionable friends and joining a dance troupe.

The second film, Cuties, is basically the same story wth the extra plot about the dance troupe added in.

It’s pretty obvious that this director is trying to make some point (over and over) about young girls in a polygamous culture based on her own childhood experiences.

 

[gam197]

Thankfully the bus driver had sense to put a stop to it, why should a bus full of people have to listen to her private conversation?

We didn’t let them finish the dance and instead engaged in offering a cultural exchange of our own in letting them know that we value and protect children i

Wise move, not one should subject children to this kind of activity.

 

[OraLabora]

So we have a woman producer who seems to have been traumatized by her upbringing, how does polygamy relate to Cuties.

Look it up! I posted a quote from the producer above. It should make it obvious. If it doesn’t, there are reviews and interviews online.

 

[gam197]

as I understand the legal criteria for CP this film doesn’t check the boxes. But some of the scenes and scenarios are disturbing. It reminds me of the pageant scene (think Jonbenet Ramsey). Having little 4 and 5 year old girls adorned with makeup come out and strut for a beauty contest isn’t CP, but nonetheless I found it disturbing and inappropriate.

Interesting.

I saw the film after hearing about it on NPR, but before there was outrage. Reminded me of a past incident when going through a village on another continent.

Why would you watch this film? You said that the village incident with the young dancers was not something you wanted to partake of.

Basically, these were children that were involved in the production of CP (a felony offense) and the distribution of CP (also a felony offense). But such occurrences were common. Some have made the news.

Have there been cases recently when teens have actually been charged with a felony for taking photos of themselves and sending it to others.

 

[gam197]

I do believe however that the producer did intend to send a social message against the hyper sexualization of children. Perhaps she felt she had to add shock value to get that message across. I do think it’s an important message to convey (along with the other message against polygamy).

Did she succeed in doing what she thought she was projecting or did her message not get clearly through to the audience?

There was a male producer so I wonder what his take was on this.

“We had several discussions back and forth after this happened. Netflix apologized publicly, and also personally to me,” she says. That apology, it turns out, took the form of a direct call from Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos. Doucouré won’t reveal what the pair said, but she suggests she was comforted by their chat and isn’t bearing any grudges. “Streamers are a great way to get my stories out and share my messages with more people,” she adds positively.

I understand what her intended message is but has she achieved that? She knows her message but what was the targeted audience?

The main message of the film is that these young girls should have the time to be children, to enjoy their childhood, and have the time to choose who they want to be when they are adults. You have a choice, you can navigate between these cultures, and choose from the elements of both, to develop into your own self, despite what social media dictates in our society.”

Doucouré has mixed feelings about the influx of social media into the lives of young people.

“It affects all of us. There is a good side to it, it brings us information and beautiful images, and lets us meet more people, but there is a harmful side, where I find we have a new way of looking at love,” she comments. “Love and self-esteem are constructed through likes and followers. What happens is young girls see images of women being objectified, and the more the woman becomes an object the more followers and likes she has – they see that as a role model and try to imitate these women, but they’re not old enough to know what they’re doing.”

There are lots on young girls on youtube, Instagrama on Tiktok. Show me a hunting film and someone’s young daughter will appear in scant clothing. It is everywhere and has been for sometime as people make money on these sites .

 

[OraLabora]

I understand what her intended message is but has she achieved that? She knows her message but what was the targeted audience?

I have no idea if she succeeded or not, not having seen the film myself. I’m not sure who the target audience would be, as it paints a fairly negative picture of both her native culture and modern Western culture, if I’m to believe what I read.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wise move, not one should subject children to this kind of activity.

As it was part of their culture I’m pretty sure they continued to practice their ritual courting dances like that in our absence.

how does polygamy relate to Cuties.

The main character’s father in the movie is taking a second wife. The mother is both saddened by it and crying while trying to present as though she is happy for the family addition. The father is absent throughout the film because of activities related to his new marriage. Unknown to the mother, the daughter is aware of her moms sadness after her mom was crying thinking the daughter was not around. The main character, Amy, apparently decides that she doesn’t like elements of the culture and pathways for women being offered to her from her family and seeks membership in another group. As part of her escape from the turmoil at home she decides to try to impress a group of girls at school that collectively referred to themselves as the “Cuties.”

Have there been cases recently when teens have actually been charged with a felony for taking photos of themselves and sending it to others.

I know of no cases for 2020. The last prosecution of a student for sexting of which I know was in November 2019. There may be more recent cases, but I haven’t looked. There was also an incident in which 50 students at a school in GA were distributing materia, but county chose not to prosecute.