Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,735
Netflix's Movie "Cuties"
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
it helps to take one for the causeKeep telling yourself that wee man if it makes you feel better about defending this show.
When did I defend it?
Netflix always providing edgy content with over sexualization of content teenagers and adults, their advertising of 'sex education' being a case in point,
and whatver this is, no such thing as bad publicity.
Will wholesome mother Meghan be handing back their payout, or Michel. #netflixtoo
and whatver this is, no such thing as bad publicity.
Will wholesome mother Meghan be handing back their payout, or Michel. #netflixtoo
What content provider or network doesn't do this?
The BBC, ITV and C4 all appear to do it, so that's British television covered. All the US networks seem to as well... to varying degrees even with the US reluctance to show non-violent explicit content.
Last edited:
If you took or had in your possession images of young girls in the clothing and poses seen in 'Cuties' you would be liable for prosection.
There is an exception for prosecution for videos classified by the BBFC under section 63 of the CJA act 2009 but you could still be prosecuted if you took individual or multiple stills or video clips from the film!
Works classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
Section 63 of the Act provides an exclusion from the offence for works classified by the British Board of Film Classification, (the BBFC), which is the designated authority under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (as repealed and revived by the Video Recordings Act 2010).
Subsection (2) defines the type of material that is excluded. An excluded image is one that forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. In deciding whether an image does form part of such a series, subsection (5) clarifies that any alteration due to a technical defect, inadvertence or inclusion of extraneous material such as an advertisement is to be disregarded.
However, this exclusion for classified films does not apply if an image or images have been extracted from one or more classified films and the reason for their extraction appears to be solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal. This would be the case, for example, where a new video work has been created consisting of images from classified films. This question is determined by the same test as is set out in section 62, that is, by consideration of the image itself and the context in which it appears.
Section 63 of the Act provides an exclusion from the offence for works classified by the British Board of Film Classification, (the BBFC), which is the designated authority under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (as repealed and revived by the Video Recordings Act 2010).
Subsection (2) defines the type of material that is excluded. An excluded image is one that forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work. In deciding whether an image does form part of such a series, subsection (5) clarifies that any alteration due to a technical defect, inadvertence or inclusion of extraneous material such as an advertisement is to be disregarded.
However, this exclusion for classified films does not apply if an image or images have been extracted from one or more classified films and the reason for their extraction appears to be solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal. This would be the case, for example, where a new video work has been created consisting of images from classified films. This question is determined by the same test as is set out in section 62, that is, by consideration of the image itself and the context in which it appears.
Let that sink in.... A BBFC rating does not preclude extracted sections of the work being classified in law, in England and Wales, as being indecent image of children for which you could be prosecuted.
As above you are talking from a point or ignorance.... A BBFC rating does not preclude extracted parts of a larger work being classified as being indecent images of children. The actual BBFC rating is irrelevant.
The problem is that there is quite a bit of evidence linking prominent LGBT advocacy groups and individuals to the promotion of a very socially permissive attitude towards (older) adults having sex with children.
In the late 70s, when the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) reared its ugly head, it won support from some gay men and libertarians, who bought the line that these abusers were an "oppressed sexual minority" and invited them to join the "rainbow coalition" of transsexuals, adult nappy wearers and other "sexual outlaws". The hideous PIE publication, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, was favourably reviewed by Gay News and other gay publications.
Tatchell himself had the following to say about adults having sex with children.
Here an account from a gay man who runs a charity in Manchester for men who have been victims of sexual abuse.
If LGBT advocacy groups and individuals don't want to be associated with child abuse it might help to have a greater degree of internal opposition to thoose involved and advocating it.
Its also an interesting point to note that i don't think you can construct a logically defensible position that would say that a pre pubescent child can commit to life altering surgery /drugs (like puberty blockers) and yet not be able to consent to having sex.
Either such children have the capacity to consent to both or neither.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 6,593
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Wasn't the whole point of their (Netflix) poster and advertisement the exact point of what the show is about? e.g. sexualising children in media
I sometimes feel with things like this it is almost down on the viewer. While it's not my type of film and I won't be watching it I did watch the trailer the last time this was brought up and I didn't really feel like I was watching anything wild or even remotely close to child pornography.
Had a friend kept saying I was a nonce if I didn't see it as porn, or something. Had to show it to a few other people, mostly women, and they didn't see the child porn angle either.
Having worked in a few secondary schools now I can say if you think young girls aren't dancing like that when messing around with one another you must be naive as hell.
This song was from 1998 so it's not like the cuties film is anything new.
Perhaps, just a thought, if your first thing about seeing girls dance is 'OMG CHILD PORNOGRAPHY' then maybe that's something that's going on inside your own head and it's you seeing them as sexual things.
Had a friend kept saying I was a nonce if I didn't see it as porn, or something. Had to show it to a few other people, mostly women, and they didn't see the child porn angle either.
Having worked in a few secondary schools now I can say if you think young girls aren't dancing like that when messing around with one another you must be naive as hell.
This song was from 1998 so it's not like the cuties film is anything new.
Perhaps, just a thought, if your first thing about seeing girls dance is 'OMG CHILD PORNOGRAPHY' then maybe that's something that's going on inside your own head and it's you seeing them as sexual things.
yes you are right ...but netflix started it .. I must watch harlots , I don't think shameless, skins, or even inbetweeners were as bankrupt.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
The only rational solution is immediately to cancel your Netflix subscription and pay your TV Licence fee 
There was controversy when BS released this in 99 and was more about the sexualisation of school girls (like they do Japan). A difference here is that BS was 18.
From watching the trailer I'd agree there were only hints if what I'd consider softcore porn, but I've seen clips shared elsewhere which definitely do look like softcore porn to me. And let's not forget that seems to basically be the premise of the film - kids performing softcore porn!
Maybe girls in schools are dancing like this, but isn't that a symptom of the problem people are talking about, that sexualised behaviours are becoming normalised for younger and younger children? There's nothing 'innocent' about that type of dancing, it's overtly sexual.
From the tone of the trailer it definitely didn't seem like Cuties is gong to do anything to fight this. If anything the mood seemed to be 'prudish mums want to stop their 11 year old daughters from having fun and doing the normal childhood activity of dressing up like exotic dancers and waggling for strangers on a stage'. That is promoting sexualisation of children in my book. I really don't want to watch the film myself (and don't have a netflix subscription), so I'll go on the trailer and clips people have shared elsewhere.
That Britney video is a different kettle of fish - she's 16, not 11 for one thing (I think?), and the dancing is not actually as sexual as dancing in the film. Yes, if we had a completely moral entertainment industry its probably not a great thing for 16 year old to be dancing in a sexualised way in a school, but at least she's 16!
Great deflection - maybe the peoe who feel uncomfortable watching prepubescent girls dance like strippers are the real weirdos? I disagree.
She was 18 at the time. Born in 81 and song released in 99.
The Britney Spears comparison is a bit laughable really.
Was Britney doing simulated sex acts in the video like dry humping the floor...no
Did Britney expose herself......no
Was Britney 11 years old.....no
I have seen some clips of the film on Twitter and there is no excuse for it. You could have easily made the points the film is supposedly trying to make without venturing into the territory it does. Its just plain twisted and a lot of sick individuals will be over the moon this material is mainstream.
Was Britney doing simulated sex acts in the video like dry humping the floor...no
Did Britney expose herself......no
Was Britney 11 years old.....no
I have seen some clips of the film on Twitter and there is no excuse for it. You could have easily made the points the film is supposedly trying to make without venturing into the territory it does. Its just plain twisted and a lot of sick individuals will be over the moon this material is mainstream.
Is it mainstream? I didn't even hear of it until the thread popped up.
Regardless, I feel that it's rather irrelevant (in the wider scope of this argument), if society is going to sexualise adults which it does... constantly, there is no reasonable way to stop children seeing it without restricting everyone's freedoms, so how far are you willing to go?
No comment