BTW, contrary to law and political treatment, the 12 year old in that case was the one acting as a sexual predator....

> Is some movie that reflects kids involved in arts and culture activities that are controversial by other cultural expectations, somehow a bigger deal than that reality?
> @LokiV
Can you clarify your position here? I'm objecting to the broader culture that we have of teaching young girls to sexually objectify themselves at an age where they don't even really understand what they're doing. I'm also objecting to the way that adolescents who start to explore themselves and their sexuality without parental guidance will tend to end up adopting very confused and harmful ideas based on what they see online. I like Cuties because it's deliberately drawing attention to that culture and making a statement about how bad it is. I see the example you brought up as an examples of that culture - certainly it's more severe than most cases, but that girl is doing those things because of what she is seeing online in the absence of any oversight. Do you agree with that?

Also, I'm curious (and extremely skeptical) about a 12 year old girl acting as a sexual predator towards 18-20 year old men. Can you clarify how that works?

Well, obviously Federal law and Facebook policy prevent a 12 year old from even making a profile, never mind one that claims a higher age that's fake, with deceptive pictures that appear to maybe be of an older teen, so that can't happen? Or, are both alleged child protective laws and Facebook policy dysfunctional bullshit when most bright kids learn to circumvent them?

I've already used the term "paradox" to describe how I see the chaotic mix of developmental human reality with legal bright line artificial standards for alleged clarity law is mandated to offer, and civil rights criteria where I see cause to protect rights to be sexually active by age 12 for those who are ready (but that's often hard to determine absent hindsight from age 40-50 or so), along with protection from imposing kids on society unless capable of parenting responsibly (which is never for far too many humans). You may find I've also called the mix of divergent and precisely fuzzy issues there "messy".

I'd probably support national civil rights standards that mandate an age of sexual consent for US state laws around 14 as Canada developed in its major overhaul some years back, but restrictions on hatching kids by anyone below majority or possibly absent licensing proving parental resources and skills (that'd get hissy fits as racial and other bias, but really, hatching a kid is the most burdensome thing humans can impose on the ecosystem and society). Just as with immigration law, I'd be surprised to see such changes as possible absent revolutionary changes. My exposure to CPS data and abuse cases reinforces that there are millions of cases, where it would not violate civil rights to ban people from hatching kids.

Also, I see the movie Cuties as potentially useful to society if it prompts serious discussion of important cross-cultural issues. I'd be curious to see more responses from around the world, as it appears the producer intent and movie content may be a bit different than Netflix promotions in the USA. Netflix seems to show more predatory financial interest via button pushing, than social benefit concern that seems closer to the intent of the movie as produced.

One other reflection.... I don't think it's possible to subject a kid to the stressors overloaded society the USA now has, without it being abusive in many ways. Despite any issues of legal criteria, mature parenting is a mix of skills and process, where much of that can be taught but not in ways that translate well to online discussions or formal regulations. There is also a need for support systems, but many of those people seek from government are contrary to our legal limits on government, while others develop by private groups that are also often subject to conflicting claims of values or practices that may be helpful to some kids and harmful to others, or to society overall.

There are Psychologists and Social Workers I've known who clearly should have licenses revoked if not be in prison, and others whose wisdom and skills ideally could be replicated more widely. Just as with parents, it's really hard to use words alone to define what that reflects.

I’m not arguing against the point of the film. I quite liked it. Parents don’t know what their kids are doing online. Overly traditional/religious families can be stifling and alienating. But the kid shouldn’t go full twerk culture either. I like the message

I appreciate cuties drawing attention to the issue

@Delta I'm glad I'm not the only one haha

But I just looked up the actual letter of law

Depicting a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal. Period.

It is abundantly clear that the dancing is supposed to be sexually suggestive. I’m sure the director would agree. The point of the movies is that depicting the fallout of the sexualizing of children

And honestly if you watched that movie and did not feel like it was shot and delivered in a sexually explicit way I don’t know if we watched the same movie. An 11 year old literally bared her chest to a crowd. The group is a twerking group. Not hip hop or anything, actually focused around twerking

The dancing is sexually suggestive but that's different than "sexually explicit." I would classify sexually explicit as engaging in sexual acts, which they didn't do.

Okay Im pretty sure you can't read the picture which is my fault. i can quote

"Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal."

Again, she exposed herself to a crowd, it was meant to be sexually enticing in context of the movie, because that was the underlying motivation for most of the dance crews actions, because that how society conditioned them, because that was the point.

But here's some clarification on that definition:


"For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i)graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii)graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I)bestiality;
(II)masturbation; or
(III)sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii)graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

I haven't seen it but I would assume if this movie could be considered sexually explicit and therefore illegal due to their age, the Netflix legal team would have stopped it. But that's only my assumption.

If they haven’t been sued, then I’d think so

Have they been sued?

I am not aware, I figured no because I haven’t seen a thousand headlines about it

Ahhh ok.

Some senatores havev sent a letter to the DOJ looking for investigation. So we'll see what happens

@everyone The first MAN HEALTH with Trav & Jer episode is about to drop! I will share it here. Please share this on your social media feeds and everywhere you possibly can to help it gain traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v5RiMdSqwk