Jump to content

Polyamory Approved


Recommended Posts

If there was internet and Facebook back in the 1840’s, I wonder what the neighbors of Nauvoo and later Utah would have said about the Mormons unique view on marriage and living together without a marriage license?

Link to post

@Islander, if anything the previous version is more of a slippery slope than the current one because there is an supposedly according to Johnson vs. the Department of Justice this inherent assumption the girl victim will  possibly want to carry on an adult relationship with her older rapist, IOW that she is anticipating sharing the responsibility of raising a child together and therefore doesn’t want her rapist to be seen as a rapist and that the judge might see this as a good thing. 
 

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

If there was internet and Facebook back in the 1840’s, I wonder what the neighbors of Nauvoo and later Utah would have said about the Mormons unique view on marriage and living together without a marriage license?

As my old cowboy uncle used to say, “If we had us some bacon we could have bacon and eggs, but we ain’t got no eggs.”

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, Islander said:

If you can not discern who the sponsors are and what could be their agenda, I can't help you.

 

What I can't discern is why you are attacking the sponsors or what you think their agenda is.  Are we suppose to guess what YOU THINK their agenda is?  If this is just a smear using feared innuendos, then just tell us so we don't assume something that isn't your position.   Making your position clear is something that you should be doing, and not something you should want me to do.  I don't want to assume the worse about you.

Edited by california boy
Link to post

@Islander, I noticed you are posting in another thread and wanted to know if you still hold the same view as before that Weiner’s Bill is the start rather than the original law actually being a problem of allowing for judge’s discretion.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/5/2020 at 10:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Well, I still think it is exploitative, but apparently some disagree. I would rather have less rather than more of this.

So, thanks to Netflix we now have more [sexual exploitation of children]. Much more. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, thanks to Netflix we now have more [sexual exploitation of children]. Much more. 

I haven't seen the movie you're talking about but I've seen some crazy talk on social media calling for boycotts of Netflix because this film is considered p0rn. I don't know about that and I have no intention of watching but it seems like an overreach.

I read a couple of reviews about it because I was curious and from what I can tell the movie is a social commentary about how society exploits children. I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious if the social media uproar is a severe overreaction and basically missing the point. Then again, maybe it's right. I don't know. But I'm not cancelling my Netflix.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen the movie you're talking about but I've seen some crazy talk on social media calling for boycotts of Netflix because this film is considered p0rn. I don't know about that and I have no intention of watching but it seems like an overreach.

I read a couple of reviews about it because I was curious and from what I can tell the movie is a social commentary about how society exploits children. I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious if the social media uproar is a severe overreaction and basically missing the point. Then again, maybe it's right. I don't know. But I'm not cancelling my Netflix.

The main problem that I have heard is that the writer and director sexually exploited the 11 year old actresses in the film (who had to shoot sexually suggestive scenes) while making a film against the sexual exploitation of kids. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The main problem that I have heard is that the writer and director sexually exploited the 11 year old actresses in the film (who had to shoot sexually suggestive scenes) while making a film against the sexual exploitation of kids. 

As long as it is in the name of art, it is ok.

Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen the movie you're talking about but I've seen some crazy talk on social media calling for boycotts of Netflix because this film is considered p0rn. I don't know about that and I have no intention of watching but it seems like an overreach.

I read a couple of reviews about it because I was curious and from what I can tell the movie is a social commentary about how society exploits children. I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious if the social media uproar is a severe overreaction and basically missing the point. Then again, maybe it's right. I don't know. But I'm not cancelling my Netflix.

The point being.....?

Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Cuties. 

Oh, I haven't seen that listing, thanks. Too bad there are so many to list that we need to shield children from. I guess they could get so desensitized that hopefully they would just not even care to view it! I could always hope!

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I haven't seen that listing, thanks. Too bad there are so many to list that we need to shield children from. I guess they could get so desensitized that hopefully they would just not even care to view it! I could always hope!

This one is unique because it (a french film) won awards for it's message, which is the anti-sexualization of girls.  It was written by a black woman, about her own journey growing up.  It has a good message.  But it puts the young actors in provocative positions, which many say is a double standard.  And it would seem to be a draw for pedophiles.  So while it would probably be fine for a teenager to view it, and they might even learn something from it, it has a down side. 

That's why there is so much controversy surrounding it right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This one is unique because it (a french film) won awards for it's message, which is the anti-sexualization of girls.  It was written by a black woman, about her own journey growing up.  It has a good message.  But it puts the young actors in provocative positions, which many say is a double standard.  And it would seem to be a draw for pedophiles.  So while it would probably be fine for a teenager to view it, and they might even learn something from it, it has a down side. 

That's why there is so much controversy surrounding it right now.

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

Still, it seems like some of the anti-netflixers are taking things a bit far in their claims and calls for bans and boycotts, but to each their own I suppose.

 

I don't know how this movie would compare but the description reminds me of Little Miss Sunshine where the little girl participates in beauty pageants and does some suggestive/inappropriate dances. It's done for comedic purposes but I don't recall any outrage about that. Perhaps it's the amount or level of dancing that's the issue.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

Still, it seems like some of the anti-netflixers are taking things a bit far in their claims and calls for bans and boycotts, but to each their own I suppose.

 

I don't know how this movie would compare but the description reminds me of Little Miss Sunshine where the little girl participates in beauty pageants and does some suggestive/inappropriate dances. It's done for comedic purposes but I don't recall any outrage about that. Perhaps it's the amount or level of dancing that's the issue.

It is quite a bit more.  It is not just pageant stuff either. 
Warning graphic:

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/cuties

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1894285-cuties-netflix-controversy

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

Still, it seems like some of the anti-netflixers are taking things a bit far in their claims and calls for bans and boycotts, but to each their own I suppose.

 

I don't know how this movie would compare but the description reminds me of Little Miss Sunshine where the little girl participates in beauty pageants and does some suggestive/inappropriate dances. It's done for comedic purposes but I don't recall any outrage about that. Perhaps it's the amount or level of dancing that's the issue.

I was going to put up some links but Cal already did.  They can be hard to watch, knowing that the girls are only 11 and performing before a room full of people involved in the filming of the movie, most of whom are likely male. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was going to put up some links but Cal already did.  They can be hard to watch, knowing that the girls are only 11 and performing before a room full of people involved in the filming of the movie, most of whom are likely male. 
 

The trailers absolutely do not give any indication that the movie is making a statement against child exploitation. It is disingenuous to claim to be against exploitation by exploiting. Accepting, championing, and awarding this kind of stuff is a big step in the wrong direction. In my opinion. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post

deleted

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The trailers absolutely do not give any indication that the movie is making a statement against child exploitation. It is disingenuous to claim to be against exploitation by exploiting. Accepting, championing, and awarding this kind of stuff is a big step in the wrong direction. In my opinion. 

Yes, I think the people who made the film lost sight of some basic but important things. Like the actresses being asked to perform such scenes. It is heartbreaking that their parents saw nothing wrong with requiring children to perform sexually suggestive acts. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think the people who made the film lost sight of some basic but important things. Like the actresses being asked to perform such scenes. It is heartbreaking that their parents saw nothing wrong with requiring children to perform sexually suggestive acts. 

This really pushes the boundaries of acceptable entertainment. Netflix is not just some obscure arts source. If this stands, we can expect more. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3
Link to post
On 9/11/2020 at 7:24 PM, Bernard Gui said:

This really pushes the boundaries of acceptable entertainment. Netflix is not just some obscure arts source. If this stands, we can expect more. 

There are always movies and art pushing boundaries and I have no doubt there will be more.  Blue Lagoon is the first example that comes to my mind. It's an old movie with very young actors/actresses. Exploitation? Yeah, probably. I only mention this to say that this isn't a new thing and I imagine some artists/directors etc are able to walk the line better than others. One might suggest that children should never be exploited and of course I would agree. But what does "exploited" mean? The meaning changes with the culture. I would imagine 1/2 the stuff on Nickelodian would be considered exploitative to people in the 50's- I mean, just the clothing alone.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't approve of exploitation but I think it's a bit more complicated than this one example and the cries of "the world is ending" slippery slope kinds of arguments.

Link to post
12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are always movies and art pushing boundaries and I have no doubt there will be more.  Blue Lagoon is the first example that comes to my mind. It's an old movie with very young actors/actresses. Exploitation? Yeah, probably. I only mention this to say that this isn't a new thing and I imagine some artists/directors etc are able to walk the line better than others. One might suggest that children should never be exploited and of course I would agree. But what does "exploited" mean? The meaning changes with the culture. I would imagine 1/2 the stuff on Nickelodian would be considered exploitative to people in the 50's- I mean, just the clothing alone.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't approve of exploitation but I think it's a bit more complicated than this one example and the cries of "the world is ending" slippery slope kinds of arguments.

I don’t wish to misunderstand you. This production takes things much farther than the examples you have provided. Some scenes if shown apart from the movie may rightly be considered soft child p@rn, if any such thing can be considered soft. “Exploited“ means filming children performing explicit sexual moves and doing other “adult” activities, using provocative advertising and misleading trailers, and defending it as an “award-winning” artistic statement against child exploitation. I wonder if these children are of age to consent to this or if their parents consented for them. I can’t imagine anyone on this board consenting to this for their child.  I don’t think contextualizing the scenes mitigates the harm. IMO, this is a boundary that should not be pushed .

It’s interesting that you discount the notion that there is a world-ending slippery slope to all this while providing persuasive evidence of said slide.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post

Shall we not talk about the 650 +/- young girls who auditioned for the parts in the movie and all the film footage from those auditions that potentially will find its way to the internet? Also, what of the parents of these girls who were quite fine with allowing/ pushing the daughters to perform the suggestive acts  ??? Some people are putting on skis because the slope is so inviting!!

Unfortunately, It is my understanding that , unless nudity is involved, the case for CP is flawed. 

Edited by strappinglad
Link to post
19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Shall we not talk about the 650 +/- young girls who auditioned for the parts in the movie and all the film footage from those auditions that potentially will find its way to the internet? Also, what of the parents of these girls who were quite fine with allowing/ pushing the daughters to perform the suggestive acts  ??? Some people are putting on skis because the slope is so inviting!!

650??? Really? What did they have to do in the auditions? I find the defense of this thing baffling. I think Justice Potter might have  "known it when he saw it."

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...