@shavixmir saidShav: Context matters!!
So, let’s step away from Cuties for a second.
Here’s a clip of a reporter on a beach. Is what’s happening in the background (and this isn’t an actor) child pornography?
https://youtu.be/kyvmmMOuHgw
Also Shav: here’s a random video which in no way resembles the scenes in Cuties. Is it Porn??
Of course, Shav also made the preposterous comparison between Cuties and Stranger Things, so Shav has no fvcking clue what he’s talking about.
Maybe you should actually watch Cuties before commenting? Just an idea.
Question to all: if the girls in Cuties were dancing bare breasted, would that have made a difference?
@athousandyoung saidOk, fair point, worded badly, then, correction, The first part I stand by, "Porn is made to be shown, with intent",
It's not consistent for you to say on the one hand, "Porn is made to be shown, with intent", and then "And what it was made for is rather subjective no matter the guise".
The logical consequence of those two statements is that it is impossible to identify porn.
2nd/ it does not matter what they claim its intent was, that is the guise.
@athousandyoung saidYou cannot, it is not relevant, except to the extent that the producers "may" be guilty of naivety. That is why I used the term guise.
So how does one go about determining intent?
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidWhy do you want to watch someone else’s child in a pretty dress?
you cant see the difference between a child with a pretty dress on just standing or walking...and a child touching themselves and making suggestive moves? really?
I don’t want to see little girls prettied up and paraded around for the the entertainment of adults full stop. You clearly do not have an issue with it.
@great-king-rat saidThat would be a relevant question if anyone was contradicting your description of what physically happens in the film. They are not, they are contradicting your interpretation of what physically happens in the film and whether it works as a piece of heads up satire on what is actually happening in reality.
Argument from authority. Good one.
But you haven’t actually watched it, have you?
@averagejoe1 saidYeah I was replying to mott’s hypocrisy not No1s consistency of position with which I agree.
I'm worried about Marauder. Never figured him for this.
@kevcvs57 saidSexual gratification is the factor. I see how your thinking works.
Why do you want to watch someone else’s child in a pretty dress?
I don’t want to see little girls prettied up and paraded around for the the entertainment of adults full stop. You clearly do not have an issue with it.
There is more to life than sex. You have revealed you only look at life through a lens of perversions.
@mott-the-hoople saidNo you have, but as usual you’ve added the hypocrisy insult to the judgemental injury.
Sexual gratification is the factor. I see how your thinking works.
There is more to life than sex. You have revealed you only look at life through a lens of perversions.
@athousandyoung saidI do suspect that you know what I am trying to say, somehow. ok, lets say someone sets up a camera in a private bedroom and films some x rated stuff unbeknown to the subjects. The subjects did not make "porn", Not guilty, no intent, Trafficking said material is selling " porn". At least a part of the process is intent. The cameraman and the distribution , intent. And obviously often content is subjectively "porn". standards do fluctuate over time.
Then we are back to the same problem - porn cannot be identified because ""Porn is made to be shown, with intent" yet you cannot determine intent.
@jimmac saidI have some idea what you are trying to say but you can't legislate based on such vague ideas.
I do suspect that you know what I am trying to say, somehow. ok, lets say someone sets up a camera in a private bedroom and films some x rated stuff unbeknown to the subjects. The subjects did not make "porn", Not guilty, no intent, Trafficking said material is selling " porn". At least a part of the process is intent. The cameraman and the distribution , intent. And obviously often content is subjectively "porn". standards do fluctuate over time.