Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Netflix sexualising children.

1…457910…30

Comments

  • #182
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,247 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Therein lies your problem:

    Pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila
    Pro trans kids / kids in drag = left wing
    Therefore, in your mind: pro trans kids / kids in drag = pedophila.

    Even though nothing in the trailed hints at either transgenderism or transvestitism.

    But its not just trans kids is it, its things like this , a poster early on in this thread went so far as to say that the only reason the ‘right wing nazi types’ have an issue with this is because its a nice story about immigrant girls.

    The left defended desmond a 10 year old child drag queen dancing in a gay nightclub for men calling out the ‘right’ as homophobes for opposing it.

    Every time something morally repugnant happens that involves children and posters who would be labelled as ‘right wing’ give out about it, the usual faces on here come along to call them racists/nazis/homophobes and say they don’t see the issue with it and make up an alternative reason as to why we hate the child abuse thing.


  • #183
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    Errashareesh wrote: »
    Stock responses like "don't watch it", "forward a complaint", "Were you as outraged about [insert other thing]?" ("outraged" is a term used to discredit btw - in numerous contexts) - these could be said about absolutely anything. They are at odds with the spirit of the place - a discussion forum. They're from people who think they're SO openminded but they're the opposite. They're not thinking it through at all - just ready with a pot shot (Mini Pops? I'd say most people here weren't even born when they were a thing).

    So it seems it's the promotion of the programme - "sexy" clothing (for pre teens), reference to twerking, rather than the programme itself. Of course this is wildly dodgy - it won't make anyone look like a crazy bible thumper to acknowledge it. To downplay it is weird - I don't think it means someone is a paedo. I do think however that it makes them seem like slaves to not wanting to look like prudes.

    Slaves to group think smugness


  • #184
    Psychiatric Patrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 974 ✭✭✭Psychiatric Patrick


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Pretty much no one has defended the artwork - they have defended the movie based on reports, reviews, trailers and interviews. Clearly some arseholes at Netflix US have misinterpreted the movie in a pretty mind boggling way.

    The movie is exploring a topic that already exists, and is pretty much entirely the fault of the sexualisation and demeaning of women that adults pretty happily engage in. It is meant to provide a window into one of the consequences of those actions. It is supposed to make you uncomfortable and, hopefully, reflect on what is causing it.

    You may as well complain about Beasts of No Nation being responsible for child soldiers.

    I think Eric Cartman is talking about a certain type of people have reacted to the complaints about the movie. That the complainers may be misinformed isn't the point nor is what the film actually being about the pain in that either.

    People jumped on the OP saying that if he sees sexualisation in the imagery (poster and trailer) that there must be something wrong with him. Ti deny thee was something wrong with the marketing campaign is madness.

    As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

    And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

    In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

    Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?


  • #185
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,247 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »
    I think Eric Cartman is talking about a certain type of people have reacted to the complaints about the movie. That the complainers may be misinformed isn't the point nor is what the film actually being about the pain in that either.

    People jumped on the OP saying that if he sees sexualisation in the imagery (poster and trailer) that there must be something wrong with him. Ti deny thee was something wrong with the marketing campaign is madness.

    As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

    And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

    In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

    Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

    This. If Imake a film condemning child sex abuse im not going to make a child porn fil, upload it to netflix and say ‘everyone watch it, it should make you uncomfortable , watch a child porn and thinkabout how awful it is’


  • #186
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    But its not just trans kids is it, its things like this , a poster early on in this thread went so far as to say that the only reason the ‘right wing nazi types’ have an issue with this is because its a nice story about immigrant girls.

    YOU used trans kids as an example, not me - I just pointed out where it illustrarted my point.

    You'd have to take the nazi right-wing comment up with the poster in question, it wasnt me.
    The left defended desmond a 10 year old child drag queen dancing in a gay nightclub for men calling out the ‘right’ as homophobes for opposing it.
    There you go again!!
    I'm left and I stated at the time that having this in a nightclub was MASSIVELY inappropriate and sexualised!

    So your anti-left bias is confirmed - it's nohting to do with political stances.
    Every time something morally repugnant happens that involves children and posters who would be labelled as ‘right wing’ give out about it, the usual faces on here come along to call them racists/nazis/homophobes and say they don’t see the issue with it and make up an alternative reason as to why we hate the child abuse thing.

    Again with the genralisation.

    The problem here is that you - personally - escalate every issue involving alternatrive cultures to a child abuse issue and then highlight anyone who doesn't see your viewpoint as a left-wing pedophile.

    Sometimes it's NOT about child abuse!!
    Not everyone who doesn't agree with you on childhood issues is a pedophile! Or even left wing - there's probably a lot of right-leaning people here who disagree with you.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #187
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This shouldn't be anything to do with politics. That poster and blurb is giving completely the wrong message, regardless of the film's content. It reads and looks like an old school porn video cover. About 11 year olds.


  • #188
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,106 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Its been clear for a number of years there has been a campaign to normalise pedophilia from certain parts of society.

    Even the OP here suffered lashback for noting the poster was disgusting (which it is)

    It seems if you highlight something you are the one with the problem

    'how could you look at it that way'
    'maybe its people like you we should be worried about'

    So many horrible people out there but hey im sure im the one with the problems because i have the issue


  • #189
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭nthclare


    This thread stinks, absolute stinks and its just a prime example of what people are suspecting about liberals and lefties all along.

    Wait and see what the liberals will be screaming for next, it'll be shockingly unsurprising.


  • #190
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    nthclare wrote: »
    This thread stinks, absolute stinks and its just a prime example of what people are suspecting about liberals and lefties all along.

    Wait and see what the liberals will be screaming for next, it'll be shockingly unsurprising.

    You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #191
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    At the end of the day despite the optics of wokeness, netflix is a large organisation cynically exploiting the image of those kids for money.

    I hope the kids and families at least got paid. I wonder generally about consent for these things, to have your image blown up worldwide as an 11 year old is not without side effects.

    Not much progressive about that.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

    There is a point though...i read back to see how the poster was "faked" and so on by a certain "right on" type.

    Both sides can be as bad as each other. Too much ideology either way ruins the ability to think clearly.


  • #193
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,739 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    You know you've messed up when 4chan has the higher moral ground than you. They wont allow any pics of it on their site.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/4chan-bans-images-netflix-film-cuties-1526545%3famp=1

    Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue



  • #194
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,741 ✭✭✭storker


    Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »
    I'm neither left wing or right wing.

    Is there a name for that?

    "Sensible"


  • #195
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,247 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Jeffrey Epstein wrote: »
    It's just a movie about girls wearing cute outfits and dancing and having fun with their friends.

    Guys, chill out. Seriously.

    With that username this is a hilarious post


  • #196
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Have only read the first few pages, but seeing people immediately jumping to defend the original image in the OP and claim its photoshopped is quite hard to believe.

    If defending this noncery without even checking its veracity was your first reaction, you have some issues.


  • #197
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    You're just parodying Eric at this point! (with apologies to Eric)

    You're just trying to do my thinking for me, at this point your comment is as useful as a butter knife trying to cut lead...

    Although lead is poisonous so you can look at this and draw your own conclusion and not mine :)


  • #198
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    i_surge wrote: »
    There is a point though...i read back to see how the poster was "faked" and so on by a certain "right on" type.

    Both sides can be as bad as each other. Too much ideology either way ruins the ability to think clearly.

    There are no "sides". Well, their shouldn't be.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #199
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,106 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Have only read the first few pages, but seeing people immediately jumping to defend the original image in the OP and claim its photoshopped is quite hard to believe.

    If defending this noncery without even checking its veracity was your first reaction, you have some issues.


    Crazy . Even the name of it 'cuties'. Horrible .

    But hey . If i think having children dressed up as dancers/strippers in sexually suggestive dance positions with the tagline 'cuties' is an issue then i am the one with the problems.

    What a messed up world we are living in. But this country has previous i suppose


  • #200
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 30,096 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »
    As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.

    And this is not a movie like a horror or a thriller where the kids' scenes are filmed iin a way where they are not exposed the horror or violent elements of the story.

    In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

    Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

    I think a documentary would have its own issues re: exploitation of the children. Besides, the person is not a documentary maker - you may as well suggest they should have done an investigative journalism report in a paper. This is their medium and their way of tackling the subject.

    Child actors are fully aware they are acting and they frequently are involved in things that are unsuitable for children. You have to give them some credit for being able to distinguish reality from fiction however.

    Much of what the children do in the movie may not be "appropriate for children" but you are deluding yourselves if you think a) it is not happening on a large scale anyway and b) that adults at large are not hugely responsible for it. The entire point being made is that the kids are not even supposed to realise what they are doing is "sexual" as the concept doesn't necessarily even make sense to them. They are trying to fit in - and the question is supposed to be why has this become something they view as a way of fitting in. Saying this is appalling and inappropriate for children and we shouldn't see it is spectacularly missing the point.

    Seemingly the marketing guys at netflix also spectacularly missed the point.


  • #201
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

    As to the movie itself, yes it does have a message against sexualisation but based on what I have read the film appear put these 11 year old children in acres and gives them dialogue that is not suitable for children.


    In this movie, these girls are speak about these topics and do that dance - which according to several reviewers is an awful thing to watch (meant to be the point).

    Would it not have been better to make a documentary about this topic rather than asking children to perform it in a fiction?

    What dialogue have they being exposed to not suitable for 11 / 12 year old actors playing 11/12 year olds ,
    Don't know why you would imply that these actors have been taken advantage of and not paid for their roles in a movie
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • #202
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    There are no "sides". Well, their shouldn't be.

    The posters who condemned the criticism blamed this on the right, conservatives, religion and Nazis. So it's reasonable to think they could be considered the left. Although I hate identity politics. Not all of the left defended it but those that defended it were all or almost all on the left.


  • #203
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Gatling wrote: »
    What dialogue have they being exposed to not suitable for 11 / 12 year old actors playing 11/12 year olds ,
    Don't know why you would imply that these actors have been taken advantage of and not paid for their roles in a movie

    The dialogue the film rating agencies have decided you need to be 18 to view.


  • #204
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,247 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    There are no "sides". Well, their shouldn't be.

    Not in this there shouldnt, I genuinely did not think for one second id come in to this thread to find pages of people defending the film or its presentation, I thought we would all be in resounding agreement that it was inappropriate and exploiting children


  • #205
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭i_surge


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    There are no "sides". Well, their shouldn't be.

    Of course there are, don't be so facetious. You have a particularly strong political alignment, many have the opposite. You are all wrong.


  • #206
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,566 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Clarence Boddiker wrote: »
    A few years ago In a previous life on boards I said that being a liberal progressive (due to the ever shifting notions of morality) means that you end up having to defend and endorse all manner of depravity and lunacy. I think I was right on that.

    Some people try so hard to be open minded that their brains actually fall out.


  • #207
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    GarIT wrote: »
    The dialogue the film rating agencies have decided you need to be 18 to view.

    14/15 on Netflix but then again a lot of marvel content got similar ratings too including cartoons that didn't have offensive content
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #208
    Ronan|Raven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,154 ✭✭✭Ronan|Raven


    I have a pain in my bollox with the mental gymnastics those on the extremes of the left and right goto. It seems you can only be one or the other. Each side trying to out bolloxology the other in taking the furthest stance from each other.

    I am left leaning on a lot of issues but think the state of that promo is beyond ****ed up.


  • #209
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Not in this there shouldnt, I genuinely did not think for one second id come in to this thread to find pages of people defending the film or its presentation, I thought we would all be in resounding agreement that it was inappropriate and exploiting children

    There's a strange phenomenon these days that some people are so full of hate for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them that they will literally defend ANYTHING that the other side oppose.

    The only reason people defended a poster of 11 years old in sexually provocative positions was because people on the other side to them were offended by it. I mean, they didnt even check to see if the poster was genuine. The first reaction was that it was fake, because there was no way they could (anonymously) agree with "American Nazi" types.

    Its absolutely hilarious.


  • #210
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Jeffrey Epstein wrote: »
    It's just a movie about girls wearing cute outfits and dancing and having fun with their friends.

    Guys, chill out. Seriously.


    If you see anything sexual in this film then you're the one with the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Im out, have to start work at 10. But I just want to say that I think it's the blacks fault. The director has Somalian heritage and the movie is about that heritage therefore it is the blacks fault.

    I say this only because I expect to be treated the same as the poster who blamed it on the religious and several reports of that were ignored.

    The blacks are responsible for the majority of debasing of children given religious people are responsible for the majority of child porn.


Advertisement