@averagejoe1 saidThe people making a stink want Netflix to remove the movie from its service; how is that only concerning "the jurisdiction in your own home"?
Now you have us off into some 'jurisdiction'. I am talking about you being the jurisdiction in your own home. You know, deciding what is moral (for lack of a better word) and what is not. You surprise me on this one. Like I said, you fellers will defend ANY over-the-top liberal activities. Why is that, Marauder? You are almost defensive. You have gotten on the wrong horse.
Some jurisdiction?
Anyway, I was responding to the ridiculous hyperbole that showing young girls dancing, even provocatively, is "child sexual abuse" and/or "child pornography". It surely isn't by any standard definition accepted by the law.
@no1marauder saidThe average age was 13.
That you think what is in the movie is "child pornography" just shows a ridiculous rigidity of mind. No court would even consider it such except maybe in Iran.
The girls weren't actually 11 (the lead character was played by a 14 year old) but that matters only tangentially.
The writer and director already explained the genesis of her idea for the film and the proc ...[text shortened]... lds to dance highly sexually in front of a camera and then turn that into a movie" that you created.
What you consider a “ridiculous ridigity of mind” is of no concern to me (ironic coming from an American, btw).
The very young girls in this movie were instructed to dance in a way that borders on mimicking sexual intercourse, touching themselves sexually, hitting the other girl’s bottom all the while dressed in the skimpiest outfits that might still be considered clothing.
Outside of the context of a movie any sensible human being would consider the sharing of a video of a bunch of children dancing in this way child pornography.
Call it a “movie”, tell the people you have a message to share and suddenly it’s no longer child pornography.
@great-king-rat saidYou missed my post on context and viewer’s interpretation seemingly.
The average age was 13.
What you consider a “ridiculous ridigity of mind” is of no concern to me (ironic coming from an American, btw).
The very young girls in this movie were instructed to dance in a way that borders on mimicking sexual intercourse, touching themselves sexually, hitting the other girl’s bottom all the while dressed in the skimpiest outfits that ...[text shortened]... “movie”, tell the people you have a message to share and suddenly it’s no longer child pornography.
@shavixmir saidI did, yes, and before reading it: sometimes child pornography is child pornography, regardless of the intent.
You missed my post on context and viewer’s interpretation seemingly.
Any decent film director can touch difficult subjects without having to resort to shock value and child exploitation. This director clearly can not.
As someone else mentioned: we need to draw lines somewhere. Starting with children seems like a good idea.
@great-king-rat saidThe simple fact is only the most closed minded, reactionary and repressive jurisdiction would consider what is in the movie "child pornography".
The average age was 13.
What you consider a “ridiculous ridigity of mind” is of no concern to me (ironic coming from an American, btw).
The very young girls in this movie were instructed to dance in a way that borders on mimicking sexual intercourse, touching themselves sexually, hitting the other girl’s bottom all the while dressed in the skimpiest outfits that ...[text shortened]... “movie”, tell the people you have a message to share and suddenly it’s no longer child pornography.
So you're entitled to your views and I'm entitled to call them ridiculous hyperbole having no relationship to how that term is characterized in law in Western countries.
Fair enough?
@shavixmir saidIs this the post that’s supposed to blow my mind?
Do you reckon a greater number of “pro-nuke us all” fanatics watched “the day after” compared to the general public?
A really good movie doesn’t judge, it won’t take sides on an issue. It will portrait quite faithfully what happens in and around a subject.
Leaving interpretation to the viewer.
Do you reckon a large proportion of parents who Allow their kids on the in ...[text shortened]... re?
Have you seen it?
Perhaps your criticism would be better placed and more founded if you had.
Because it doesn’t.
There is very little left to interpret as these children strut their stuff.
Have YOU actually seen it?
1 edit
@great-king-rat saidI watched the trailer and saw the "objectionable" original Netflix poster.
Is this the post that’s supposed to blow my mind?
Because it doesn’t.
There is very little left to interpret as these children strut their stuff.
Have YOU actually seen it?
The girls' outfits don't seem particularly "skimpy" to me; you make it sound like they are wearing a couple of leaves over their private parts but having been to dance competitions they seem rather typical to me. As I said in another post:
https://www.facebook.com/marqueyh.chandler/videos/10221396651976831 (Is this "child pornography" IYO Rat?)
EDIT: The video is of the (slightly) younger version of my granddaughter's dance team which competes in events throughout the Northeast (well it did before COVID).
@no1marauder saidThe simple fact is that this movie uses the overly sexualised movements of young children to sell itself.
The simple fact is only the most closed minded, reactionary and repressive jurisdiction would consider what is in the movie "child pornography".
So you're entitled to your views and I'm entitled to call them ridiculous hyperbole having no relationship to how that term is characterized in law in Western countries.
Fair enough?
Hide behind the law all you wish, this movie crosses a line as to how children are used to sell a product. Any decent parent should not allow their child to be used in such a fashion and any decent film maker should refrain from using such imagery.
@no1marauder saidWhy don’t you watch a bit more before expressing your opinion, big boy?
I watched the trailer and saw the "objectionable" original Netflix poster.
The girls' outfits don't seem particularly "skimpy" to me; you make it sound like they are wearing a couple of leaves over their private parts but having been to dance competitions they seem rather typical to me. As I said in another post:
https://www.facebook.com/marqueyh.chandler/videos/10 ...[text shortened]... ddaughter's dance team which competes in events throughout the Northeast (well it did before COVID).
And I don’t do Facebook. Never have, never will.
@great-king-rat saidNo. That’s not the one.
Is this the post that’s supposed to blow my mind?
Because it doesn’t.
There is very little left to interpret as these children strut their stuff.
Have YOU actually seen it?
@shavixmir saidThis is the one.
Say there is a picture of a nude woman.
Can you differentiate between it being art, being sexual exploitation, being a warning, being educational?
The answer is: context.
Children playing on a slide is children playing on a slide.
Unless the viewer is a paedophile who doesn’t see children playing, but sees young bodies smoothly stroking the steel chute.
Is the ...[text shortened]... ked children arses?
Is the context nudity? Or is it innocense being destroyed by political choices?
@shavixmir saidYes, context matters, but we still draw lines. This is why I asked earlier if we should show children having sex with adults. We shouldn’t.
Say there is a picture of a nude woman.
Can you differentiate between it being art, being sexual exploitation, being a warning, being educational?
The answer is: context.
Children playing on a slide is children playing on a slide.
Unless the viewer is a paedophile who doesn’t see children playing, but sees young bodies smoothly stroking the steel chute.
Is the ...[text shortened]... ked children arses?
Is the context nudity? Or is it innocense being destroyed by political choices?
We draw lines. Regardless of context, we draw lines.
I most certainly would not allow my child to be used in this fashion, regardless of context.
Your example undermines your earlier statement about context. The image of two naked children walking away is not meant to be sexual. The dance moves in this movie are clearly, unambiguously meant to be sexual. There’s your context.
The context of those two naked children? Not sexual.
The context of the dancing children? Sexual.
Have YOU actually seen this movie?
@great-king-rat saidGreat King, this is commonplace with these libs. Suzy is a prime example.
Responding to a small portion of a post instead of the entirety and the intent behind the post.
Excellent 🙄
@no1marauder saidLike I said, you need to take a break. This reads like something the wobbly stnoefaced Biden would say, undecipherable. Libs win the trophy for this stuff. Talk about hyperbole.
The people making a stink want Netflix to remove the movie from its service; how is that only concerning "the jurisdiction in your own home"?
Anyway, I was responding to the ridiculous hyperbole that showing young girls dancing, even provocatively, is "child sexual abuse" and/or "child pornography". It surely isn't by any standard definition accepted by the law.
@great-king-rat saidI'm not really interested in the subject matter of the movie; my tastes on Netflix are more escapist.
Why don’t you watch a bit more before expressing your opinion, big boy?
And I don’t do Facebook. Never have, never will.
But in reading the complaints about the movie from Earl's original link, a lot of it stems from the dance routine that is depicted in the original Netflix poster. Part of that routine is briefly shown in the trailer as well, with what you call the "skimpy outfits" that can be barely called clothing in your view and the use of which constitute "child pornography" in your opinion.
I consider such opinions outrageous and gave you an example of a dance routine from one competition I was present at. If you don't want to look at it, fine.