Remember when sexually exploiting children was considered evil and wrong? Apparently that’s all in the past now. It’s a sign of uncultured, regressive thinking.
Netflix is defending their decision to stream “Cuties” (“Mignonnes”), a film that’s being criticized by the public for sexual exploitation of young girls. Which is understandable, given that it features young girls twerking, touching themselves suggestively, and watching sexually explicit dancing. Oh, and a girl’s bare breast.
But for some odd reason, our intellectual betters in the media have decided to go to the mat for “Cuties” and defend its honor.
Today, for example, we’ve got the Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg:
The freakout about #Cuties bothers me more than almost anything I've seen in a decade as a critic: https://t.co/yR7pngfmaU
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
“The freakout.”
Two things are simultaneously true: #Cuties depicts disturbing, age-inappropriate behavior by young girls, AND it unequivocally views that behavior as sad and harmful to the girls involved. https://t.co/yR7pngfmaU
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
I am so deeply disturbed by the charges that this movie is child pornography, when it is, among other things, an argument about the effect of near-pornography on young girls. https://t.co/yR7pngfmaU
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
Saying otherwise isn't just a gross mischaracterization of the actual film itself, it's a really horrible thing to do to the director and to the excellent young actresses in it. https://t.co/yR7pngfmaU
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
The “excellent young actresses” were exploited by the filmmaker, the producers, and their parents. But the “really horrible thing to do” is pointing that out.
You can definitely have an argument about whether some of the scenes that show child characters behaving in inappropriate ways are shot in ways that undermine the point. But the most notable one is also constantly intercut with expressions of concern, sadness and even disgust.
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
If conservatives, who have jumped on the debate over #Cuties, want to be taken seriously as cultural arbiters, they have to be able to talk about the *text* of a movie like this in an honest, responsible way. https://t.co/yR7pngfmaU
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
Those damn right-wingers being irresponsible!
The freakout was mainly about that one poster, though, right?
— Kyle Orland (@KyleOrl) September 11, 2020
Oh, no, it's become a whole #QAnon inflected thing with people arguing that it's functionally child pornography. It's…a lot. And it's distressing.
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
If you agree that material that checks a bunch of the “this is functionally child pornography” boxes, you’re just some QAnon conspiracy nut.
I'm just disgusted and sad.
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
Alyssa should be disgusted and sad. With herself. And with every person who thinks that sexually exploiting young girls is the best way to argue against the sexual exploitation of young girls.
Like Megan McArdle:
A great piece by my colleague @AlyssaRosenberg pointing out that maybe before you critique Cuties, you should, I dunno, watch it to find out what's actually in the movie? https://t.co/tf7RWrkoxg
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) September 11, 2020
Hey, want to see a bad take? https://t.co/LvwAsEajMI
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) September 11, 2020
Yep, that’s a bad take, all right.
People can and will draw lines differently. This is good and proper.
However, I do not need to watch a movie about torturing animals to know whether or not it is bad.— Jerry Bohl, Jr. (@jr_bohl) September 11, 2020
The movie is AGAINST sexualizing children. Not for it.
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) September 11, 2020
Is it not possible to make the point that sexualizing children is bad without, you know, sexualizing children?
What if we think it's bad to sexualize children, and it's bad for adults to watch sexualized children, even if the movie is trying to claim it's bad?
— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) September 11, 2020
Then you're under no obligation to watch the movie, but I would also avoid critiquing it because you'll necessarily lack context and necessary facts to do so accurately.
— Alyssa Rosenberg (@AlyssaRosenberg) September 11, 2020
Is this real life? There’s no “context” necessary when we saw with our own eyes footage of little girls twerking and humping the floor and touching themselves.
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) September 11, 2020
I listened to a former dancer who did watch it. She was curious about why, in the process of making a movie about the exploitation of kids, kids had to be exploited. She wondered why there had to be so many closeups of their private parts during otherwise innocuous dance moves.
— Gina Dalfonzo (@ginadalfonzo) September 11, 2020
Gee, it would be nice if filmmakers would find a way to criticize the sexualization of children without, you know, sexualizing children.
— Michael Garner (@MikeGarner9) September 11, 2020
If that's the point of the movie, then you make a documentary or you use girls who are of age already. You don't film preteens in suggestive ways and then try to claim "no no no, this movie is AGAINST that sort of thing!" https://t.co/QNYQP6UQlR
— Inconspicuous Rex (@CrankyTRex) September 11, 2020
The part where the young girls, aged 9-13, are stroking their v*****s with their fingers while thrusting and humping on a stage in booty shorts for adults was what pushed “Cuties” into the unequivocal CP category for me, personally. https://t.co/GnxwPCvkE6
— The Red-Headed Libertarian™ (@TRHLofficial) September 11, 2020
Whereas 11-year-olds twerking on Netflix bothers the rest of us. We all have our pet peeves. https://t.co/Fdex6Oaykn
— I did not and will not vote for him. Calm down. (@jtLOL) September 11, 2020
So, do we need a movie about true evils of child pornography to truly understand the ugly underside of…child pornography?
I am unsure how far this logic goes. https://t.co/OpVMNhgnxL
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 11, 2020
You don’t want to know.
"So to let the public know I oppose setting puppies on fire, I set puppies on fire and filmed it, then told the audience that burning puppies is bad" – Psychopath film maker
*Journos give standing ovation*
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) September 11, 2020
Insane. They’re insane.
"It's all about sexualizing children, to let you know that it's bad." https://t.co/IyY9z1jDV7
— David Edward™ (@_David_Edward) September 11, 2020
"I'm an intellectual. Until I watched 'Cuties' I didn't know how awful the sexualization of children was."
Normal people: "We already knew it."
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 11, 2020
Sensible people: This is a terrible thing, sexualizing children. We should make a documentary exploring how awful it is.
Dumbasses: Right. We'll do so by totally sexualizing 11 year olds and then bitching when people complain about it.
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) September 11, 2020
Exploiting child actors to make a point about exploiting children does not make those scenes acceptable. https://t.co/sPNWiVdUXV
— Kassy Dillon (@KassyDillon) September 11, 2020
Please stop trying to force people to watch soft-core child pornography.
It's gross. https://t.co/jW86Q6uqjq
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 11, 2020