|
Starks posted:when I have a kid lol jesus christ (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Waterbed Wendy posted:has anyone in here actually watched the movie? I watched it this morning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Here's another weird wrinkle: i believe there's a gendered component here where boys sexuality is often treated as a charming joke whereas girls sexuality is almost seen as dangerous and corrosive. and there's not a lot of implied threats about dads with shotguns threatening to shoot their cishet sons female dates for prom
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
edit: gently caress it actually not taking the bait
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Have not seen the movie, and honestly I think the debate going on here right now is actually something the director wanted to invite, so I hope I'm not throwing too big a wrench in the discussion when I bring up this point. One of the big issues about the controversy -- not the film itself but the controversy -- is the conspiracy theory, culture war lens its being viewed under. For example, the critics in the OP who defended the film have been receiving massive harassment (including by-name attacks in Breitbart) as defending pedophilia and being categorized as part of a liberal intelligentsia that wants children to be sold into sex slavery. These are bad faith attacks made by people with no interest in the nuanced issues of depiction versus endorsement and the sexualization of children in Western society, but rather as a political cudgel with a tunnel-vision view of the world as being controlled by baby-eating cabals. So much of this uproar has been astroturfed to fit into a delirious, reality-defying worldview bent on depicting anyone left of Donald Trump as literally subhuman monsters. The film is almost immaterial as these people are wholly uninterested in it or the questions it is posing, only in what political expedience the film as a cultural object provides. What's interesting is there was generally an equal outrage from left and right when the Netflix poster dropped. However, most left-wing sources, once they found out what the film actually was, backed down and recognized this was just a massive fuckup in marketing by Netflix. Whereas the right gives zero shits and has honed in entirely on "Cuties is a pedo film for pedos made by pedos and anyone who suggests it may be nuanced or about something is also a pedo." And I think that's tragic in a way, because Doucouré's message is being lost and the debate it's inspired is not being had on level ground. At the same time, I only bring this up in here because I think there's still -- even in this environment talking about the film on its own merits or dismerits -- a reactionary impulse. The idea that we just shouldn't allow children to act in films is kind of patently absurd merely on the grounds of what restrictions are we applying to art? It's a nonsensical, moral panic Save The Children kneejerk response when these issues crop up. So, if I'm reading this right, the argument is we just shouldn't have any kids movies or movies about children because there's some sort of ill-defined, inherent exploitation to have a child work on a film set? A Wrinkle in Time, Stand by Me, Kramer vs. Kramer, Harry Potter etc etc etc -- all films of varying themes and genres about or featuring children just shouldn't be allowed to exist? Am I reading the argument correctly? It reminds me of a comment I made a few months back in the CSPAM Epstein thread about how I was surprised that Lynne Ramsay's You Were Never Really Here hadn't seen a major revival given its themes of elite child trafficking, and someone replied to me about how the film itself was probably tainted under the dark, absolutist assumption that any film made featuring children was somehow a front or a portal to actual real world trafficking. There's no evidence that the set of You Were Never Really Here was in any way host to those types of crimes, or even that the children in the film were made aware of what the movie was actually about (much in the way that Stanley Kubrick protected young Danny Lloyd from knowing that The Shining was a horror movie), yet in this online discourse this fantastical thinking takes over where any depiction of a child is exploitation and it's only a small skip and a jump from there to imagining shadowy cabals and pizza basements. Anyway, I haven't seen Cuties. I don't know if I'm even all that interested in it beyond the unfortunate Qanon connection and how the film has been consumed by The Discourse. But people I trust have said the film is nuanced and provocative and Doucouré seems to be earnest in her intentions and her goal for the film was noble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i believe there's a gendered component here where boys sexuality is often treated as a charming joke whereas girls sexuality is almost seen as dangerous and corrosive. and there's not a lot of implied threats about dads with shotguns threatening to shoot their cishet sons female dates for prom yea tbh this is the biggest annoying thing to me. Like, I do accept that there's a non-minor amount of people 'upset' over the movie who aren't Q freaks trying to say the scary black lady wants to abduct your children for a sex cult, but I can't help but wonder where all these people were when there were plenty of movies where young boys did lewd and absurd things as a joke. Like, if the stance is 'having a child around anything sexual is inherently exploitative of that child's lack of consent' that's fine, but where was this ~discourse~ during fuckin, I dunno, Bad Grandpa when Knoxville was having a kid talk about his grandpa's droopy prosthetic balls or something for a joke? Why was 'no see it's funny because it's a kid' a more valid reason than this movie actually trying to tell a story?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea tbh this is the biggest annoying thing to me. Like, I do accept that there's a non-minor amount of people 'upset' over the movie who aren't Q freaks trying to say the scary black lady wants to abduct your children for a sex cult, but I can't help but wonder where all these people were when there were plenty of movies where young boys did lewd and absurd things as a joke. Like, if the stance is 'having a child around anything sexual is inherently exploitative of that child's lack of consent' that's fine, but where was this ~discourse~ during fuckin, I dunno, Bad Grandpa when Knoxville was having a kid talk about his grandpa's droopy prosthetic balls or something for a joke? Why was 'no see it's funny because it's a kid' a more valid reason than this movie actually trying to tell a story? I get the sense is because the former makes your idiot brain laugh and the latter criticizes this practice, makes you feel uncomfortable and forces you to confront complex issues you would rather ignore. So it's easier to just get mad and say, 'No THEY'RE the ones at fault.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I get the sense is because the former makes your idiot brain laugh and the latter criticizes this practice, makes you feel uncomfortable and forces you to confront complex issues you would rather ignore. So it's easier to just get mad and say, 'No THEY'RE the ones at fault.' yea to be clear I'm not genuinely trying to be all 'oh wow so you guys have lady issues huh' or whatever, I do know 'haha that kid said he wants a blumpkin, he doesn't know what that fuckin is' and a more serious scene like the dance scene do hit different, it's just an annoying gap in the 'well it's all exploitative though' argument'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
to be fair, there's not a lot of movies with boys dancing around in tight shorts as opposed to expressing their posturing sexuality by like smoking cigs in the woods and bragging about how breasts feel just like bags of sand part of the controversy is the portrayal of girls cringingly trying to reach for a sense of empowerment by dancing like fully matured adults. the difference is whether this image is more tragic and uncomfortable than it is pervert bait. using any depiction of girls acting like grown women in a sexualized context is going to touch a nerve, i won't watch the film again. but as stated above, i think that a large part of the outrage is people trying to deal with this engineered discomfort by finding someone to blame
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Where are all these QAnon-type crusaders when, say, an adult female teacher rapes a student? The answer is: they're mostly nowhere, because they aren't actually very concerned with child sexual abuse, they are concerned with a culture war. Child sexual abuse is a huge, huge problem but a lot of the loudest voices basically ignore the bits of it which don't fit their narrative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
They're here for the puzzle and the stories of underground lairs. Present them with the actual mundanities of real life abuse and they couldn't care less. See also: The Wayfair debacle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:They're here for the puzzle and the stories of underground lairs. Present them with the actual mundanities of real life abuse and they couldn't care less. And the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories! Very fond of those as well, they are...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
A little off-topic but I heard someone reference Natalie Portman in "Leon: The Professional" as an example and that was something that made me uncomfortable. Like I'm not sure what the movie was suppose to say about her being "in love" and acting like the hitman's significant other.Waterbed Wendy posted:has anyone in here actually watched the movie? Me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:A little off-topic but I heard someone reference Natalie Portman in "Leon: The Professional" as an example and that was something that made me uncomfortable. Like I'm not sure what the movie was suppose to say about her being "in love" and acting like the hitman's significant other. The director's cut is especially not cool. It's a weird, disturbing choice that's made legitimately concerning by stories of the director that have come out in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:The director's cut is especially not cool. It's a weird, disturbing choice that's made legitimately concerning by stories of the director that have come out in recent years. I hate that my reaction to this stuff coming out is total non-surprise now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Roth posted:I hate that my reaction to this stuff coming out is total non-surprise now. yea it sucks a ton of rear end that seeing 'oh yea and that director's been outed as, at best, a creep who made a lot of people needlessly uncomfortable, or at worst something far darker' just gets a 'ah, another then' reaction from me at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:The director's cut is especially not cool. It's a weird, disturbing choice that's made legitimately concerning by stories of the director that have come out in recent years. I see. I find that film to be the inverse of "Cuties". It's a very well regarded film, yet whenever the topic is brought up people refuse to acknowledge something might be there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:The director's cut is especially not cool. It's a weird, disturbing choice that's made legitimately concerning by stories of the director that have come out in recent years. Is it even in question that Besson is probably a creepy nonce? I haven't seen the directors cut, but even the regular movie reminded me of Taxi Driver but....trying to make the inappropriate relationship cute. e. oh, shocking, Besson got his ex-wife pregnant when she was 16, and were dating since she was 15...3 years after he met her. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
The other film Cuties draws to mind is Little Miss Sunshine, which ends with a provocative dance performed by the family's young daughter that's played for a mix of laughs and discomfort but also iirc lacked as pointed a commentary as Cuties does (I haven't seen it since like 2007 fyi). And that movie was nominated for Best Picture!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:The other film Cuties draws to mind is Little Miss Sunshine, which ends with a provocative dance performed by the family's young daughter that's played for a mix of laughs and discomfort but also iirc lacked as pointed a commentary as Cuties does (I haven't seen it since like 2007 fyi). And that movie was nominated for Best Picture! I haven't seen Little Miss Sunshine so the movie that jumped to my mind first is Mean Girls, just for the one scene of Regina George's young sister watching a Girls Gone Wild commercial and imitating it while her mom was actively not giving a poo poo. It's only one scene and it's played for a joke but the girl is like, 8, so it runs up against the same issue: does the kid understand what she's doing when the director tells her to flash the TV screen (facing away from the camera, obviously) It also brings all of those gross lovely kid beauty pageants to mind, mostly because the sort of people who dress their 8-year-old daughters up like pageant queens are the exact sorts of people who are likely to fall into the most conspiracy-adjacent angles of this controversy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:The other film Cuties draws to mind is Little Miss Sunshine, which ends with a provocative dance performed by the family's young daughter that's played for a mix of laughs and discomfort but also iirc lacked as pointed a commentary as Cuties does (I haven't seen it since like 2007 fyi). And that movie was nominated for Best Picture! Yeah it comes completely out of nowhere and is goofy as poo poo and the scene is her family joining her to dance to stick it to the audience. The scene in Cuties is more like when they would do Saw movies, and everything sees the drill coming towards the eye and is expecting it to cut away, but it doesn't and just shows it all in its horrific glory. I'd love for the director to say something like "yes, all sorts of female child pageants/dancing contests need to stop existing" and wait for the response from all the republicans to claim that Southern Beauty Pageant culture is 100% different and none of those children are being exploited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
pentyne posted:I'd love for the director to say something like "yes, all sorts of female child pageants/dancing contests need to stop existing" and wait for the response from all the republicans to claim that Southern Beauty Pageant culture is 100% different and none of those children are being exploited. France, the country where this movie was filmed, banned child beauty pageants in 2013. I wish I could say it was in response to Toddlers in Tiaras, but nooooo it was because a fashion rag went too far quote:The measure was prompted by a row over a photo shoot in Vogue magazine. The photos published in December 2010 showed a girl of 10 with two others, all three in heavy make-up and wearing tight dresses, high heels and expensive jewellery. You know that shot is cocked and ready for the first American of any importance to throw stones at the French. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Sep 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slS-6xVpI90
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 04:05
|
|
|
At the simplest level, I feel like this film is holding up a mirror to society and a bunch of people don't like what they see and are convinced it's the fault of the evil, bastard mirror, which should obviously be shattered into a thousand pieces for showing such an unpleasant image as we continue to ignore actual problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to humbly request a summary or perhaps your thoughts before I risk committing to watch any youtube talking head for 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
Years ago goons stumbled upon some weird website that sold videos of kids fighting and just posted about it as a trashy thing. Eventually someone discovered links to these child modeling websites and it became quite apparent that it was some child porn stuff. The sad thing is the stuff i saw on those websites had more respectful cinematography in it than what was in this movie. The fbi of course shut all of them down and arrested its owners. I guess what I'm trying to say is there is no way this isn't classified as child porn in the US so if you want to get dibs on watching an unedited controversial film I'd do it now. As far as child actors go the lead was great, ultimately the story will certainly resonate with some people, though probably not an anti-theistic white man like myself. The controversial scenes,to me, are child porn. The main reason twerking is erotic is because it is basically air humping with an arched back. So you have that with the gratuitous camera shots, crotch grabbing, it goes a bit beyond the typical but youre the one that's sexualizing them defense. which, besides, lets be honest, france isn't exactly the country you want to be taking cues from on sexually exploiting young girls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
I feel like this film is a lightning rod for this increasingly bizarre culture war that the world has found itself in. I think the subject that it makes me think about it the most is, as some others have said, the depiction of adolescent sexuality in art. Is it wrong for a female director to make a film like this? Is it wrong for a male author to write a book where an adolescent protagonist performs oral sex? Is it wrong for adults to wax nostalgic for teenage moments? Should adults be creating works that feature underage sexuality at all? Can we determine when it's okay/art versus when it's not/erotica? Are there problems with pornography? Should we be regulating things more? Is it a bad idea to give a child Internet access? It's a very complex issue and it feels like any argument I put forward in my head is a double-edged sword. The one argument that I don't think holds much weight, however, is the idea that the film must be censored because pedophiles will jerk off to it. Let's be serious for a moment. If you track down harmless videos of children on Youtube, I bet you'll find a few comments that make your skin crawl. Like those comments from Mara Wilson, it doesn't actually matter if the content is sexual - they'll use it as a sex thing anyway. More to the point, this leads to a broader argument as to what the responsibility is of an artist to the audience when creating a work. If the audience might take a Bad Message from a work, then should we control content more firmly? And if pedophilia is a problem from children being on screen, do we need to look at media violence and violent crime? And I'm not someone who thinks that depiction is harmless! But how many people are going to see a movie and have an anti-social reaction? One percent? Less? So, I don't know. I'm not sure I can watch the movie because I think some of the content would make me uncomfortable, and it's something I'm sensitive to as I work with children. But it isn't the fault of the film - I think society in general has a bit of a tension when it comes to children, the Internet, sex, and social media. I grew up in the age of dial-up and it's just impossible for me to comprehend what it must be like to grow up submerged in social media, and what that might make children do. But even back then, one of my first memories of the Internet being a gross place was when a friend of mine had started putting up photos of herself on a now-defunct photo album site, and they started picking up disgusting comments. But the difference between then and now is like night and day. These days, porn ads feature women doing anime-inspired 'ahegao' faces because, well, that's the kind of thing people respond to these days. Is this harmful? If it's harmful, how long does it take to show symptoms? When was the first influx of 'fingers in mouth' and when did it become such a huge thing a few years back? What do you do about any of this? But even as a kid, I was weirded out when peers would do sexy video clip dance routines before the whole school. Horizon Burning fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I'm gonna have to humbly request a summary or perhaps your thoughts before I risk committing to watch any youtube talking head for 30 minutes. It's a good conversation of the film and it's controversy and I agree with most of it. Good watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
No one. Not one drat person in any review has mentioned that this loving thing is DUBBED. Film critics are worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:No one. Not one drat person in any review has mentioned that this loving thing is DUBBED. Film critics are worthless. You can switch it to French, though I'm way too out of practice with my French to tell if the subtitles are accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Roth posted:You can switch it to French, though I'm way too out of practice with my French to tell if the subtitles are accurate. I'm also pretty out of practice but it seems like solid subbing to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
What bothers me about the discourse is the arguments some people are making. Not here, but on Youtube or Discords or Twitter or wherever else. 'They should've used actors who look like kids without actually being children.' 'It would've been okay if it was a documentary.' 'I wouldn't have a problem with it if the girls were one or two years older.' Like, those are all really uncomfortable things for people to claim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
Horizon Burning posted:What bothers me about the discourse is the arguments some people are making. Not here, but on Youtube or Discords or Twitter or wherever else. That third one is pretty yikes, though. I hope it's just someone not thinking through what that implies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:The desire to compromise is a pretty common one. "On the one hand people saying the movie is exploitative and gross have a point, but on the other I believe in artistic freedom and it is important to expose these concerns about society, how can I balance these ideas?" The first two things you posted are pretty in line with that, trying to devise ways of showing that this happens without inflicting the harm on new people, whether by using adults capable of consent or by showing what is happening regardless of your filming. It says that their concerns are on the production side, not on the viewer side. Whether these are appropriate compromises for either perspective, or would have the same effect on viewers and the general conversation, is debatable, but they're an understandable position. Doesn't seem any more uncomfortable than the rest of the discussion. I think the issue with the "should have been a documentary" talking point is that children are still exploited by footage being used of them, but without the agency and knowledge of the children being shown, which defeats itself. The set of Cuties was one of more controlled circumstances, where much guidance and counseling were resourced to the children, which to me seems preferable than any of the other options put forward. All the quotes Horizon Burning brought up are equally uncomfortable to me, I just haven't been able to put into words why that is. I think it's that the points being made, while noble, perpetuate the problems of objectification they long to solve. Maybe others can build on this here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Let's address those briefly point-by-point: 1) "What if the actresses looked like children but weren't?" That's reasonable if your primary concern is whether the actresses were sufficiently aware of what they were doing, but it's not a defense to the idea that this is a film which sexualizes children and provides wank material for pedophiles, which is one of the primary things that the most outraged-online people are attacking. It seems reasonable, but there's also the possibility that some of the people presenting this solution actually do want to be able to view this content for sexual reasons without feeling too gross about it afterward. More on this when we discuss point 3. 2) The problem with it being a documentary is then you're basically watching these girls doing inappropriate things and the director cannot intervene to say, "holy poo poo, what are you doing putting crotch shots on Instagram? You shouldn't do that!" Or they do, and that issue doesn't get into the documentary. Either way, it doesn't make the same point it did in this film, and strays waaaaay closer to the line of actual exploitation -- and maybe crosses it. These are actresses, and from everything being reported, their well-being was attended to in a variety of ways while on-set. The actresses, while still minors, were older than the children they portrayed from what I've heard, and many of them have probably wrestled with these issues in real life. The things they are doing are not real, any more than an actor portraying a soldier who's been shot has actually been shot. 3) The idea that it would all be okay if this featured slightly older teens is unspeakably gross, because in essence what that says to me is that these people want something they can get a boner from without feeling gross about it. I think this film is acceptable as-is, and I think it would be acceptable if it focused on girls who are slightly older; however, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that it would be inherently more acceptable if the children were slightly older, because then it's not really about protecting minors from alleged exploitation (if they're still minors, it's legally and morally the same), it's about making a creep with a boner feel better about it and not have to grapple with what that says about him and our society. As many people have pointed out: this film is about coming of age in a society that treats women as sex objects, at the same time as you grow up in a culture that represses female sexuality, and navigating the issues that arise from that. We aren't meant to feel comfortable about that, we shouldn't feel comfortable about that, and proposing changes which make us feel more comfortable about that is counterproductive to the point the film is attempting to make. I'm still open to the idea that maybe this film ought not have to been made, but with the possible exception of point 1 (from the point of view of how the actresses are going to be affected by this film), these proposed changes would not make it acceptable. And, frankly, I'm sure the reaction to this film is more harmful to the actresses as making the film possibly could have been, so I find it hard to take that suggestion in good faith unless it comes from someone who's offering a nuanced critique of the issues involved instead of one of the moral-panic-warriors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
PT6A understands why I find them weird arguments, thanks. Each argument struck me as an attempt to see the same images but in a 'guilt-free' sense. But would still, ultimately, not do anything about the issue they're claiming to rail against - images of 'exploited' children. And we have to ask why do these people want that? Like Fanana said, those points still perpetuate objectification. Anyway, I watched the film. I can see why people are upset but the film isn't what people think it is. I'm still not sure how I feel about the film but I think there's value in how it unflinchingly holds up a mirror to how our society treats women and girls. People seem to neglect the societal context, but also the wider context of the film. Time and time again, the girls demonstrate that they don't know what they're doing and how close they are to danger. Ami's attempts to sexualize herself don't work and they don't make her happy, leading to a breakdown on stage at the climax of the film. And this stuff is happening right from the start of the film, where she botches the attempt to straighten her hair with a clothes iron. There was so much of the film that rang true, such as the part where Ami lashes out and stabs the boy in the hand after he insults her. Watching the dances go from something fun the girls to do bond to something that's stressing them out and driving them apart was basically a metaphor for the process of maturity. I think had this film come out a few years ago - certainly, say, a decade ago - there'd be no controversy. Or much less controversy, at least. Should the film have been made? Who knows. To answer that, I think the world would need to interrogate a few more of those points I raised earlier. Like, should adults be creating works that feature adolescent sexuality? What can we do the dismantle the system that leads girls to doing this sort of thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
I saw a good comment somewhere else with someone pointing out that children don't spontaneously develop sexual awareness at 15/16 they know about it from a fairly young age and will explore to understand it. Scenes with 12 year old boys talking about boobs are a staple of gross comedy hi-jinks and the movie Good Boys featured exactly that. The fearmongering over the girls doing such things like talking about blowjobs, watching porn, etc. comes from a mentality that wants to pretend young girls are essentially asexual until they hit the 15/16 age range which is coincidentally the same age that all these adult men think is an appropriate age for them to consent to sex. The few people discussing it in good faith are the same ones saying "this is a movie parents should watch with their preteen daughters and explain the issues b/c if those girls have smartphones they already know about all this stuff anyways" poo poo, look at this from 1994 quote:Milk Money is a 1994 American romantic comedy film directed by Richard Benjamin and starring Melanie Griffith and Ed Harris. The film is about three suburban 11-year-old boys who find themselves behind in "the battle of the sexes," believing they would regain the upper hand if they could just see a real, live naked lady. The real issue is less about child exploitation and more the recurring message "girls don't think about sex, until they're old enough to have sex with adult men, in which case they are 100% fully informed to consent"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Horizon Burning posted:PT6A understands why I find them weird arguments, thanks. Each argument struck me as an attempt to see the same images but in a 'guilt-free' sense. But would still, ultimately, not do anything about the issue they're claiming to rail against - images of 'exploited' children. This isn't meant to negate your finding them weird arguments, because one could reasonably follow through and say that depictions, even if no harm was caused by their creation, can still create harm in their depiction. Or on the other side that enough precautions were taken that the actors weren't really exploited by the film so it's an arbitrary difference. The entire discussion is one that pits various values against each other and, combined with personal experiences, people are going to give different things different weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:This isn't meant to negate your finding them weird arguments, because one could reasonably follow through and say that depictions, even if no harm was caused by their creation, can still create harm in their depiction. Or on the other side that enough precautions were taken that the actors weren't really exploited by the film so it's an arbitrary difference. The entire discussion is one that pits various values against each other and, combined with personal experiences, people are going to give different things different weight. That's what I mean. If the act of depiction is what causes harm (people masturbating to the images, for example) then what does it matter if the kids are technically not children, or if it's a documentary, or if they're a few years closer to the age of consent? The imagery would still exist. And if the imagery is the problem, then that's what should be interrogated. Not trying to find ways to allow you to watch those really uncomfortable scenes in a way that makes you feel, well, safe. 'Wow, I can get into this scene now that I know they only look underage.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
pentyne posted:I saw a good comment somewhere else with someone pointing out that children don't spontaneously develop sexual awareness at 15/16 they know about it from a fairly young age and will explore to understand it. Scenes with 12 year old boys talking about boobs are a staple of gross comedy hi-jinks and the movie Good Boys featured exactly that. This is a very good point that I didn't even consider.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 04:13
|
|