Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

Then you should see it. That is why I said it was sickening the way they marketed it. And no, it is a long way from being child pornography. I would say no more than the girls gymnastics at the olympics when they are on the balance beam. I would say about the same level of exposure.Educate yourself what the movie is actually about .


18 posted on 09/12/2020 10:05:57 AM PDT by eastforker (All in, I'm all Trump,what you got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: eastforker

When 11 year old girls are on the balance beam, do they talk about boy’s penis size? Do they take close up pictures of their vaginas and post them on the internet? Do they spread their legs wide open with a seductive pose on their faces? Does the camera focus close up on their buttocks while they’re twerking? Do they thrust their pelvises erotically simulating intercourse?
I’m sorry, I wouldn’t let you near my children if you think that’s normal.


31 posted on 09/12/2020 10:39:13 AM PDT by sunny bonobo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker

Cuties’ Review: Dull and Indefensible


[...]

You can’t judge a movie by its content. It’s not about content. It’s about what the movie has to say about the content.

[...]

Before we get to Cuties, let me go a bit further…

Bully (2001), Kids (1995), L.I.E. (2001), Thirteen (2003). Tough movies. R-rated movies. What you call hard Rs. All about underage kids doing all sorts of terrible stuff. I will and have defended all four. Again, not about the content. About what the movie says about the content. No one, unless they’re already corrupted, walks away from those four movies thinking any of that is okay. All you want to do afterward is take a shower.

That’s why, initially, sight unseen, I defended Cuties. I did not defend Netflix’s appalling ad campaign, which was aimed directly at the naked-guys-in-a-raincoat-named Floyd crowd. For whatever reason, Netflix is big on sexually exploiting children. Barack and Michelle Obama and Susan Rice are getting rich(er) off all those Floyds.

Okay, I didn’t exactly “defend” Cuties. Gave it the benefit of the doubt. For all the reasons mentioned above.

Now I’ve seen it and can’t defend it.

Cuties is soft-core child pornography disguised as art. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Cuties does not tell Naked Floyd to be ashamed of himself. Naked Floyd’s going to love Cuties. That’s a problem. A big problem.

[...]


 

35 posted on 09/12/2020 10:51:58 AM PDT by Bratch (If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker

You were sickened by the way they marketed it? The ad campaign is mild compared to what’s in the movie.


39 posted on 09/12/2020 11:02:28 AM PDT by sunny bonobo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson