Is NETFLIX guilty of Child Abuse

@philokalia said
Oh sure, I only meant to bring up hypothetical scenario.

I've said how I feel about it concerning my family.

I won't mention yours.

But... If you like... Feel free to engage in hypothetical questions.

If it is too hard or difficult to imagine or you don't want to speak about morality in a debate forum, I understand

Ok, let's frame the moral debate by having you finish this sentence;

"It is a grevious moral wrong for a filmmaker to have clothed 12 to 14 year old girls perform a provocative dance with sexual overtones even though:

A) The girls' parents consent and the girls themselves are under no compulsion;

B) The dance itself is an important plot device as part of the film's message opposing the sexualization of young girls by social media and other pressure;

BECAUSE ............................

@kegge said
You should really stop bringing people's family into this debate. It is tasteless.

"Tasteless" - So is calling a good poster in here a racist and a bigot, spew boy.

@earl-of-trumps said
"Tasteless" - So is calling a good poster in here a racist and a bigot, spew boy.

Which "good poster" would that be?

@no1marauder said
Ok, let's frame the moral debate by having you finish this sentence;

"It is a grevious moral wrong for a filmmaker to have clothed 12 to 14 year old girls perform a provocative dance with sexual overtones even though:

A) The girls' parents consent and the girls themselves are under no compulsion;

B) The dance itself is an important plot device as part of the film ...[text shortened]... alization of young girls by social media and other pressure;

BECAUSE ............................

This phrasing doesn't match up with what I saw, though. Clothed is not an accurate description because it lacks detail.

@no1marauder said
Last post, page 22.

Could not be played as it says playback on other sites is disabled.

The preview image does look terrible, though.

I don't want to watch the video, so let's assume it is as bad as or worse than Cuties


Point?

I should have been here in 2011 or whenever calling for its cancelation?

@no1marauder said
Ok, let's frame the moral debate by having you finish this sentence;

"It is a grevious moral wrong for a filmmaker to have clothed 12 to 14 year old girls perform a provocative dance with sexual overtones even though:

A) The girls' parents consent and the girls themselves are under no compulsion;

B) The dance itself is an important plot device as part of the film ...[text shortened]... alization of young girls by social media and other pressure;

BECAUSE ............................

Wow, so
A/ child prostitution is ok if Mum, dad, and kid is ok, i.e, not relevant,
B/ The sexualization of young girls is ok if the cause is ok. Good, lets flood the market with one show a week, how about a netflix series and keep on keeping on, good cause. i.e not relevant, or at the least, subjectively relevant.
How/why you have framed this question is questionable. It is like you are asking Phil to explain to you why these "facts" exist, making a misleading assumption that they are indeed facts. This is the Duchesses game. Getting you to defend a stance that you never knew you had taken. Wow. lawyer talk?
Not meaning to be rude, sorry, but this is a bit out there.

@no1marauder said
Here's a video of the performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0DtUcPTQEc

The girls are 8 and 9, not 12 to 14 like in Cuties.

Philo ... just cut and paste the link if you want to see it.

This is unacceptable.
The clothing is inappropriate.
The music is inappropriate.
The dancing in another context might be OK (I didn't watch it all)

It is bewildering that any parent would consent to this.

@philokalia said
This phrasing doesn't match up with what I saw, though. Clothed is not an accurate description because it lacks detail.

What a disappointing and pathetic dodge. "Clothed" means "Wearing clothes; dressed" (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/clothed) and the girls were clearly that.

@jimmac said
Wow, so
A/ child prostitution is ok if Mum, dad, and kid is ok, i.e, not relevant,
B/ The sexualization of young girls is ok if the cause is ok. Good, lets flood the market with one show a week, how about a netflix series and keep on keeping on, good cause. i.e not relevant, or at the least, subjectively relevant.
How/why you have framed this question is questionable. ...[text shortened]... knew you had taken. Wow. lawyer talk?
Not meaning to be rude, sorry, but this is a bit out there.

Finish the sentence then.

All those factors are clearly relevant as to the "morality" of the movie in question and Philo said he wanted to discuss "morality" (except he obviously doesn't).

If you want to dispute any of the facts I have given, do so.

@philokalia said
Could not be played as it says playback on other sites is disabled.

The preview image does look terrible, though.

I don't want to watch the video, so let's assume it is as bad as or worse than Cuties


Point?

I should have been here in 2011 or whenever calling for its cancelation?

Perhaps you forgot, but the "point" was you asked me to provide a one minute clip of a dance as bad as the one in Cuties (the post you did it in was removed).

I provided one far worse from a national dance competition. The defense at the time was that this was typical attire and activity in dancing:

"The girls' parents defended their daughters' performance at the World of Dance, billed as the largest U.S. urban dance competition, saying their daughters' moves and outfits were appropriate for competition.

'This is taken completely out of context,' Cory Miller, father of one of the girls, told 'Good Morning America' today. 'The girls weren't meant to be viewed by millions of people.'

Miller said they have tried to slow the spread of the video, but viewers need to understand that the girls' performance was 'completely normal for dancing.'"

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/young-girls-single-ladies-dance-sparks-controversy-on-internet/417-358053786

@wolfgang59 said
Philo ... just cut and paste the link if you want to see it.

This is unacceptable.
The clothing is inappropriate.
The music is inappropriate.
The dancing in another context might be OK (I didn't watch it all)

It is bewildering that any parent would consent to this.

So, I took a look, and the outfits are outrageous, though, by Marauder's definition, they are clothed, (lol), so perhaps this should not even be discussed?

But the camerawork generally makes up for it. There are no close ups. The dancing is not inherently sexual.

From another perspective, one could say that kids wear less to the beach all the time, and I do understand that, but if there was a man watching close-up shots of kids at the beach like this, would it not be obvious what his perverted mind was up to?

In all cases, whether it is a woman in a nice, tight outfit walking down the street, or a man with a perverse brain re-watching the most depraved scenes in Cuties, it is actually the person's nous which draws from it the ugliness. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, obscenity is also in the eye of the beholder.

@no1marauder said
Perhaps you forgot, but the "point" was you asked me to provide a one minute clip of a dance as bad as the one in Cuties (the post you did it in was removed).

I provided one far worse from a national dance competition. The defense at the time was that this was typical attire and activity in dancing:

"The girls' parents defended their daughters' performance at the [ ...[text shortened]... .com/article/news/local/young-girls-single-ladies-dance-sparks-controversy-on-internet/417-358053786

... and it did create a national outrage, and pehaps even led to reforms in the dance scene. I am not sure.

Also, I would say that this is not nearly as extreme as the clip that I had posted from Cuties. There are no close-ups and the dancing is not anywhere near as sexual in nature.

The two are not comparable.

@no1marauder said
What a disappointing and pathetic dodge. "Clothed" means "Wearing clothes; dressed" (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/clothed) and the girls were clearly that.

The range within the word clothed is enormous.

@philokalia said
Also, I would say that this is not nearly as extreme as the clip that I had posted from Cuties. There are no close-ups and the dancing is not anywhere near as sexual in nature.

The two are not comparable.

Err.... you just compared them.

@philokalia said
So, I took a look, and the outfits are outrageous, though, by Marauder's definition, they are clothed, (lol), so perhaps this should not even be discussed?

But the camerawork generally makes up for it. There are no close ups. The dancing is not inherently sexual.

I wouldn't let my girls dress like that.
It is sexualising young girls.

I do however let my girls play naked on the beach - it's totally different.