The “Cuties” Project. Lowering the age of consent is the ultimate prize. Wherein Fr. Z rants

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh well he’s said plenty, in general. But the difficult questions he ignores.
I can “judge” (or discern) very clearly about Freddy and his atheist non-beliefs.
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
Oh well he’s said plenty, in general. But the difficult questions he ignores.
I can “judge” (or discern) very clearly about Freddy and his atheist non-beliefs.
Click to expand...
You should read what I write. It might help your confusion.
Freddy said:
I appreciate that there are two levels to this. On one hand, and this is what almost everyone is talking about, is the fact that these are young actors and they are playing a part in a way with which most people disagree. I get that. But I don’t agree with it. There are exceptionally severe restrictions on what child actors can and cannot do. And there would be people on set to make sure that they weren’t exploited in some way.
Click to expand...
 
People who watch it see that these young people were in fact exploited.
Eleven year old children dancing scantily clad with the camera lingering on their body parts?
“Come on man”.
Eleven year old children are not allowed to sign legal contracts. They’re too young to be allowed to do exotic dancing on film.
Would they be allowed for any reason to dance like this in person, say at an exotic dancing establishment?
Would that be legal?
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with criticism of the film. But is there any real evidence - apart from Fr. Z’s increasingly conspiracy- minded rants - of an organized campaign to lower the age of consent, as he claims?
 
27lw said:
People who watch it see that these young people were in fact exploited.
Eleven year old children dancing scantily clad with the camera lingering on their body parts?
“Come on man”.
Eleven year old children are not allowed to sign legal contracts. They’re are too young to be allowed to do exotic dancing on film.
Would they be allowed for any reason to dance like this in person, say at a exotic dancing establishment?
Click to expand...
I see you spotted the answer to one of the questions you said I ignore because they are so difficult. But I had to post it twice…

All the children would have parents and/or legal guardians signing the contracts necessary for acting in the film. If you can find any evidence that those involved in looking after the children thought that they were being exploited in any way then you’d have a point.

Here are some guidlines noted by a film school which covers child actors (in this case in British Columbia I believe):

"Even non-union shoots are wise to follow UBCP standards where appropriate. Then they’ll know they’ve done their due diligence to ensure the well being of the child actors. Union rules provide good tried and tested guidelines when non-union shows have no other standards.

Most situations require one parent/guardian per child (with a few exceptions). That parent /guardian must be within sight and sound of the child at all times.

There are very specific legal requirements concerning hours of work, time on camera, overtime, and rest periods for minors. These are specified in the links below.

Get familiar with UBCP’s requirements for children performing in scenes involving difficult and/or dangerous content.Difficult content includes scenes with nudity, sex, or abuse. Examples of dangerous content include stunts, special effects, or animals."

I have no reason to believe that guidlines very similar to this would be in place for a French film. Please feel free to find any information you can that contradicts that. In the absence of any such information I am suggesting to you that every care was made to ensure that the children were not expoited in any way.

Any views to the contrary will be your personal opinion. Which of course is entirely valid. But will be just your personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
40.png
27lw:
People who watch it see that these young people were in fact exploited.
Eleven year old children dancing scantily clad with the camera lingering on their body parts?
“Come on man”.
Eleven year old children are not allowed to sign legal contracts. They’re are too young to be allowed to do exotic dancing on film.
Would they be allowed for any reason to dance like this in person, say at a exotic dancing establishment?
Click to expand...
Here are some guidlines noted by a film school which covers child actors (in this case in British Columbia I believe):

"Even non-union shoots are wise to follow UBCP standards where appropriate. Then they’ll know they’ve done their due diligence to ensure the well being of the child actors. Union rules provide good tried and tested guidelines when non-union shows have no other standards.

There are very specific legal requirements concerning hours of work, time on camera, overtime, and rest periods for minors. These are specified in the links below.

I have no reason to believe that guidlines very similar to this would be in place for a French film. Please feel free to find any information you can that contradicts that. In the absence of any such information I am suggesting to you that every care was made to ensure that the children were not expoited in any way.

Any views to the contrary will be your personal opinion. Which of course is entirely valid. But will be just your personal opinion.
Click to expand...
See, @Freddy, we’re not just talking about hours of work, overtime, schooling and rest periods for minors. Let’s talk about the moral question of letting child actors essentially perform “exotic dancing” on film. California at least seems to pay lip service to the idea. I don’t know whether France does.
If these minors had parents supervising this filming, then I would very much question the suitability of those parents. I think that it’s not a far cry to say that these parents are essentially “pimping” their daughters for the purposes of this film.
Just my opinion, of course.
It’s interesting that you chose to quote from a film school, rather than something like the Screen Actors Guild. I would imagine that there is some French actors union that has a similar provision to this:
" SECTION 50 - THE PRODUCERS SCREEN ACTORS GUILD CODIFIED BASIC AGREEMENT:
50. EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS:

A. Preamble
(1) The Producers and Union, recognizing the special situation that arises when minor children are employed, have
formulated the following provisions in addition to those contained in other Sections of this Agreement to ensure
that: (a) The environment in which the performance is to be produced is proper for the minor; (b) The conditions of
employment are not detrimental to the health, morals and safety of the minor; and (c) The minor’s education will
not be neglected or hampered by his or her participation in such performance. (2) Engagement Upon employment
of any minor, Producer shall notify the minor’s parent or guardian of the terms and conditions of employment,…"

 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I can see that some are on the verge of claiming that I’m actually supporting child porn and that wouldn’t end well,
Click to expand...
We can’t divine your motivations.
But the misunderstanding of moral principles is obvious. Moral evaluations have a real object. Your disconnect is precisely there.
 
DaveBj said:
I completely agree with all the negative reaction to “Cuties,” but Fr. Z has it wrong here. Netflix in no way “created” the movie. A simple reading of the related Wiki article, could have cleared that up.

D
Click to expand...
While it is true that Netflix didn’t create the movie. They did acquire exclusive US rights to the movie (and perhaps exclusive rights for some other nations too).

Therefore, their defense of the movie makes them very culpable.
 
Cuties is likely an isolated incident as far as I can tell.
 
27lw said:
Oh well he’s said plenty, in general. But the difficult questions he ignores.
I can “judge” (or discern) very clearly about Freddy and his atheist non-beliefs.
Click to expand...
I understand. That makes more sense on intellectual topics, as opposed to those centering on lust, especially sexual attraction to children.

This is a hard topic. I do not like that multiple threads have been created for it though. It does not need more advertisement. I guess it had to be challenged, but now it will receive a lot of viewership it would not have had otherwise.
 
27lw said:
It’s interesting that you chose to quote from a film school, rather than something like the Screen Actors Guild. I would imagine that there is some French actors union that has a similar provision to this:
Click to expand...
It’s no more interesting than the fact that that was the first link I found that had something relevant. But thanks for noting that the Screen Actors Guild has something similar and for the acknowledgement that similar rules and regs would be applied in France.

It seems that in your view, either the rules were not followed or that they were and you simply disagree with them - or at least the interpretation of them. I’m assuming that the latter is applicable.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
If you can find any evidence that those involved in looking after the children thought that they were being exploited in any way then you’d have a point.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if they didn’t think the children were exploited, they were. How they view it or what they think doesn’t determine exploitation. All adults involved do have other potential motivations besides the welfare of the children–the director wants to see her ‘vision’ manifested a particular way, parents’ desiring fame and money through their kids, etc.

Have you watched the movie–all of it? There are repeated, close shots of crotches and bunnies wherein the shorts are so short and tight they clearly show the contours of those body parts. The dancing is provocative but the filming and editing is exploitative–girls sucking on their fingers, simulating sex, throwing their heads back as if in orgasmic delight, and spanking each other in a sexual manner. I’m all for shocking an audience and waking people up to a cause–sometimes that is necessary to convince people of an issue. But in shooting the film to highlight and emphasise the sexuality of the girls themselves instead of focusing on exploitation and sexuality as a topic. For example, provocative dancing could be shown at a distance rather then showing up close, full screen crotch and bunnies shots. No one in real life would have that amount of focused detail shoved in their face even if they were sitting in the audience. I am not easily shocked and this disturbs me.
 
Last edited:
I am very aware of that, having daughters and being a psychologist. As their mom, though, I cannot fathom allowing them to have film taken of them that exploits them and that will be recorded for all time. I wouldn’t have as much a problem with this if they used actors over 18.
 
NevermoreLenore said:
I am very aware of that, having daughters and being a psychologist. As their mom, though, I cannot fathom allowing them to have film taken of them that exploits them and that will be recorded for all time. I wouldn’t have as much a problem with this if they used actors over 18.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that everybody connected with the film thought the girls were mature enough to play the part. Including their parents. You have assumed otherwise.

There’s not much further we can go, is there?
 
Some mothers might have terrible ideas of what is suitable for eleven-year-old girls. Some mothers even have their children taken away. Seems like everybody is turning a blind eye to whatever they want to ignore.
 
If I may interject, it’s got to be more than smartphones. Without going into detail, I was doing some explicit stuff when I was as young as twelve. As were the twelve year olds I knew, both boys and girls. Smartphones did not exist (at least not as we know them) when I was 12.
Cuties, on the other hand, this, this should be illegal, and I am pretty sure, is.
 
One of the best ways to get a child to watch or read something is tell them that they are not allowed to do it.

The only reason I played Grand Theft Auto and read “The Satanic Bible” as a preteen is that my parents would go into a total tizzy at the mere mention of those things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top