Sign in to follow this  
NeuroTypical

Netflix’s upcoming underage twerking movie - “Cuties”

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I don't understand why it would be allowed,

Elder Oaks shared the following regarding 'presentism':

Quote

“The lesson I drew from this scholarly research and publication has made me a life-long opponent of the technique of presentism — relying on current perspectives and culture to criticize official or personal actions in the past,” said President Oaks, who served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court from 1980 to 1984. “Past actions should be judged by the laws and culture of their time.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
11 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Elder Oaks shared the following regarding 'presentism':

I am saying that I don't understand the full reasoning behind it, rather than criticizing it (or those who did it).

I admit that it has been a stumbling block for me.

Quote

Past actions should be judged by the laws and culture of their time.”

The practice was not the cultural norm of the time and was against the law in much of the US.  Even in the Chirch it caused a lot of contention.  It was one of the primary contentions that caused some of the Three Witnesses and Quorum of the 12 to fall away.  It caused a lot of persecution against the Church too.

The only (partial) reasoning I have found for it is that polygamy only works if males marry second, third, etc. brides younger than themselves.  Polygamy was meant to be a trial for the Church.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scott said:

The practice was not the cultural norm of the time and was against the law in much of the US.

To clarify, what "practice" are you specifically referring to?
I was under the impression that your stumbling block was:

On 9/14/2020 at 7:55 PM, Scott said:

I agree.  In fact this is one of the stumbling blocks I have with Church history.  There were many 12-15 year olds married off to men in their 30's to 50's.

So is your concern:
1. They were "married off" at a young age?
or
2. They were "married off" at a young age into polygamy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished reading the ThirdHour article: 

What this Family Therapist and Film Critic Thinks about Cuties on Netflix

which I thought was well put together.
Especially enjoyed the following:

Quote

I’ve been fine with the existence of everything else on the Netflix platform. Like a public library, they’ve got all sorts of material, and I can choose what’s right for me. The First Temptation of Christ doesn’t bother me, because they also have Young Messiah, Joseph King of Dreams, and God’s Not Dead. I can set ratings filters. I can put into my queue only those films I want to see. Any movie theater, video store, or library will have both films that I treasure and material which I find offensive. No reason to shut any of them down; it’s better to just support the good stuff.

But a film like Cuties, with such potential to harm the innocent, to be exploited by viewers with less-than-pure motives, featuring underage actors who could not fully understand what they were doing, gives me more than pause. And the Netflix ad campaign showed that whatever the filmmaker’s motives, her art is a loaded gun and Netflix has zero problems opening fire.

So yeah, I’m canceling Netflix. Maybe not for the exact same reasons as others. But close enough. It’s a shame. I really loved Stranger Things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 6:42 PM, NeuroTypical said:

It's always good to have relevant data and perspective.

2020: image.png.0ba47db2e93772dffc8778a048f1be2d.png

 

And just to stay on topic, someone paid the parents of an eleven year old to twerk it up in Cuties.

I'm not sure what this map represents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 9:09 AM, Scott said:

That still doesn't explain why they were married at ages 12 through 16.

Explain?  I don't think we need to.  Where are you judging from?  The present, based on present conditions, present people, present norms, present ideals.

I realize I'll be accused of virtue signalling, but I'll risk it.  Any one of my children who were raised to listen to the Lord in all they do would have been more prepared for the realities, responsibilities, and blessings of marriage at the age of 14 than most people I see in colleges today, and even a good chunk of those who have already graduated.

Don't judge another time by the standards of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NeuroTypical,

I'm wondering if there is some "trustworthy source" that actually states unequivocally that there is underage nudity in this film.  I'm obviously not going to go check it out for myself for obvious  reasons.  But is there some film reviewer who would actually tell the truth about it?

Netflix has made a public statement that there is "NO UNDERAGE NUDITY" in this film.  If that is true, then they can't be prosecuted for distribution of child pornography.

But if they are lying, then what are the penalties in today's CFR?  @Just_A_Guy???

I understand that DOJ is investigating.  But what could potentially happen?  And if there is no "actual nudity" (whatever the legal definition is) does "lewd behavior" of minors qualify for some violation?  Apparently, everyone agrees there is at least that in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm wondering if there is some "trustworthy source" that actually states unequivocally that there is underage nudity in this film. 

IMDb states the following in the Parents Guide (Sex & Nudity):

Quote

Children are watching pornography on a cell phone. Nothing is shown, little girls are huddled around a phone and talking about what is going on. Another scene shows two young girls watching the routine of a rival, older dance team on a cell phone. One of the girls dancing exposes her bare breast. Entire breast of minor is visible.

Read the rest or part of the Guide 'if' you want to fully offend the Spirit. I read enough and had to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
On 9/14/2020 at 5:42 PM, NeuroTypical said:

It's always good to have relevant data and perspective.

2020: image.png.0ba47db2e93772dffc8778a048f1be2d.png

 

And just to stay on topic, someone paid the parents of an eleven year old to twerk it up in Cuties.

I'm not sure what this map represents.

This is a chart of age of consent by state.  I thought it valid to both the topic of Cuties, and the sub-discussion happening in this thread. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just a quick scan indicates 18 is red, 17 is blue, and 16 is green.  Unless I'm missing something?

So, those numbers are the ages of consent?  I got mixed up because the context of your text in that post indicated it had something to do with Cuties.  So, I was thinking those colors had to do with how many Netflix users viewed the film.  And I didn't think it was 16, 17, & 18 viewers in those states.  So, I asked.

Then when you said it was the age of consent, I was already done looking at the numbers...

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Netflix has been indicted by grand jury in Texas.  Not sure how the legal system works here, but Yay!

121128664_773064176588775_5778361161415404389_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=a-fD4sJYXL4AX_Qee4F&_nc_ht=scontent-den4-1.xx&oh=af69bd3918a5bfb8a361c6ec44e4cd1d&oe=5FA2A79C

Pro tip: If you're gonna run a streaming service, try not to stream "visual material which depcits the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of clothed or partially clothed children".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the world/Netflix tries to distribute garbage like Cuties, it is wonderful to see that when "darkness rises, and light (rises) to meet it*". Here is what Netflix should be distributing instead imo.

*yes, that was a Star Wars reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
On 9/21/2020 at 12:57 PM, Carborendum said:

@NeuroTypical,

I'm wondering if there is some "trustworthy source" that actually states unequivocally that there is underage nudity in this film.  I'm obviously not going to go check it out for myself for obvious  reasons.  But is there some film reviewer who would actually tell the truth about it?

Accoring to people who have seen it, there isn't any nudity from the children, but it seems to be implied.

Edit:  Apparently there is a shot of a bare breast.

Obviously, like you, I'm not going to watch it.

Maybe read this from a conservative website.  The author saw it.  The author says that there is no actual sex, but it does sound disgusting:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cuties-netflix-pretty-babies/

Edited by Scott
More info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

Accoring to people who have seen it, there isn't any nudity from the children, but it seems to be implied.

...
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cuties-netflix-pretty-babies/

From that article: first paragraph.

Quote

Cuties does not feature nudity (just a very quick glance at an adolescent girl’s breast)

Self-contradictory.  That is nudity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

From that article: first paragraph.

Self-contradictory.  That is nudity.

I'd have to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When "a quick glance at an underage girl's breast" is not considered nudity, then what is? Young girls dancing to provocative music in skimpy clothes while cupping their breasts, twerking, slamming their hips into the ground, and moaning = PORN. This film, those who made it, and those who put their children in it are corrupt and evil. This garbage will only progress from here. In a few years full topless and bare bottom shots will be considered okay because the kids and their so called "parents" will consent to it. Film studios and those individuals who are progressive and enlightened, will tell us that pornography is only the actual engagement in sex, not just seeing a naked body. "Those who try to censor this type of storytelling and art are bigots, and are trying to prevent true freedom".

If anyone (whether on this forum or not) still has doubts, you need to wake the heck up. This film is pornography; child porn, period. Satan is working in broad daylight. The line in the sand has been drawn and gets clearer every day. Everyone needs to get their rears in gear and choose which side they are on...you cannot serve both God and mammon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, scottyg said:

In a few years full topless and bare bottom shots will be considered okay because the kids and their so called "parents" will consent to it. Film studios and those individuals who are progressive and enlightened, will tell us that pornography is only the actual engagement in sex, not just seeing a naked body. "Those who try to censor this type of storytelling and art are bigots, and are trying to prevent true freedom".

Well people are already saying that.  Someone said that on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this