Netflix is pushing pedo bait and people are still angry

[AliceShiki]

Honest question 1: Why are people using F-Word, C-Word and Dick instead of using F-Word, C-Word and D-Word? Or I dunno, Fuck, Clitoris and Dick? Or did I get the C-word wrong?
I mean, geez, it's not like the forums have advertisers that will censor our words, yanno?

Honest Question 2: Why are people so caught up in this stupid debate of the choice of words when the OP even apologized for their choice anyways?


With this out of the way, @Taxouck brought a solid point. Apparently the movie was premiered in some French competition and won an award for what it did... Sure, the movie also got critics and isn't perfect, but that much is fine, no movie is perfect.

The controversy about this movie honestly baffles me. You wanna complain about a movie? Sure, fine, go ahead, everyone has the right to do so... But do it after you watch the damned thing. Not after you see a poster and a synopsis. The movie only airs in September for heaven's sake.

To think over 150000 people signed a change.org petition to take the movie down even before it aired... Geez, at least complain about things you know something about, not about stuff you barely saw anything of... >.>

 

[binarysoap]

Or did I get the C-word wrong?

I thought it was cunt actually, but i could be wrong too.

 

[AliceShiki]

I thought it was cunt actually, but i could be wrong too.

Oh, that makes more sense, I was wondering why people said it was an insult when I never heard clitoris being used as an insult... >.>

Well, I didn't really know cunt had an actual meaning referring to genitals, the more you know~

 

[Moonpearl]

Honest question 1: Why are people using F-Word, C-Word and Dick instead of using F-Word, C-Word and D-Word? Or I dunno, Fuck, Clitoris and Dick? Or did I get the C-word wrong?
I mean, geez, it's not like the forums have advertisers that will censor our words, yanno?

It's cunt. But I wanted to avoid saying them because some people get really, truly upset hearing/seeing them, and I can't be bothered dealing with more frenzied people tonight.

Honest Question 2: Why are people so caught up in this stupid debate of the choice of words when the OP even apologized for their choice anyways?

Think most of us are just discussing the use of swear words in general now.

 

[Watchman]

Honest question 1: Why are people using F-Word, C-Word and Dick instead of using F-Word, C-Word and D-Word? Or I dunno, Fuck, Clitoris and Dick? Or did I get the C-word wrong?
I mean, geez, it's not like the forums have advertisers that will censor our words, yanno?

Honest Question 2: Why are people so caught up in this stupid debate of the choice of words when the OP even apologized for their choice anyways?


With this out of the way, @Taxouck brought a solid point. Apparently the movie was premiered in some French competition and won an award for what it did... Sure, the movie also got critics and isn't perfect, but that much is fine, no movie is perfect.

The controversy about this movie honestly baffles me. You wanna complain about a movie? Sure, fine, go ahead, everyone has the right to do so... But do it after you watch the damned thing. Not after you see a poster and a synopsis. The movie only airs in September for heaven's sake.

To think over 150000 people signed a change.org petition to take the movie down even before it aired... Geez, at least complain about things you know something about, not about stuff you barely saw anything of... >.>

The movie already aired in France and it was fine and it was ok, but I think people are upset that Netflix took that movie and sexualised it with what they decided to do with the cover and synopsis for its American audience. Why did netflix do this? Who knows, maybe it’s to advertisement through controversy so they could make an extra buck

 

[AliceShiki]

The movie already aired in France and it was fine and it was ok, but I think people are upset that Netflix took that movie and sexualised it with what they decided to do with the cover and synopsis for its American audience. Why did netflix do this? Who knows, maybe it’s to advertisement through controversy so they could make an extra buck

Well, yes, but I'm pretty sure the people complaining about it aren't even aware of that, nor did they watch the French version of the movie that is already out.

They seem to be angry at the content of a movie they didn't watch, not about the campaign that Netflix did... Or at least that's the feeling I got from this whole fuss.

I mean, the only people that brought up the Netflix campaign up seemed to be people saying that the movie was actually good... >.>

 

[BenJepheneT]

Oh, it's much worse than that man. "Pussy" is not a term that's considered synonymous with "dick" in terms of meaning. There is another slang term referring to female genetalia that, if used as slang, IS synonymous with "dick." You know what word I'm talking about. It's considered the 3rd worst word you can use in the English language, the racially disparaging terms referring to black people and Jews being numbers 1 and 2.

you know, i can keep a good judgement call and deem people who rank fucking swear words to be folks who'd most likely be out of the gene pool in 50 years

The term "dick" refers to a person who is being brash, rude, and uncaring about the feelings of the people they interact with. Especially if it is in the process of getting something for themselves or generally screwing over someone.

The term "pussy" refers to someone who wimps out and behaves in a weak, cowardly, or overly delicate manner.

The C word means almost exactly the same thing as "dick," except that it refers exclusively to women. It can occasionally have the additional meaning of being especially vendictive while acting in a manner that would get you called a "dick." This is the condition under which a man can be referred to with the C word instead of being called a "dick." Meanwhile, a woman gets called a "dick" instead of the C word if her callous behaviors are more on the toned-down end.

So, yes, "dick" and the C word are approximately equivalent terms, it's only a slight difference in manners of degree, and a huge range of overlap in the middle where men only get called "dick" unless they cross the extreme high threshold and women are more often called the C word where a man would just be called a "dick" for largely the same behavior.

hey professor: when I call anyone a cunt, I mean nothing but that they're fucking cunts. when I call someone a dick, I mean nothing but that they're a dick. there's no underlying message or giant conspiracy or "reading between the lines" in this. this isn't "progressive thinking"; this is "getting way over your head".

when it's to the point where you think it's rational to start describing the usage of "cunt" and "dick" between genders and think that you're virtuous in doing so, I think you're being a bit of a cunt yourself.

With this out of the way, @Taxouck brought a solid point. Apparently the movie was premiered in some French competition and won an award for what it did... Sure, the movie also got critics and isn't perfect, but that much is fine, no movie is perfect.

The controversy about this movie honestly baffles me. You wanna complain about a movie? Sure, fine, go ahead, everyone has the right to do so... But do it after you watch the damned thing. Not after you see a poster and a synopsis. The movie only airs in September for heaven's sake.

To think over 150000 people signed a change.org petition to take the movie down even before it aired... Geez, at least complain about things you know something about, not about stuff you barely saw anything of... >.>

I don't need to eat shit to know it's shit. I'm not so much of a sheep that I'll just listen to other people call shit "progressive" and follow what they say just because they're "movie critics". They're still human beings capable of making giant turds of mistakes and this is the biggest one yet.

I don't care if European critics go up in arms and claim the thing to be "progressive beyond belief". I can make my own judgement and, like most other people, see borderline child sexualisation without needing another person's opinion.

I think I'm gonna extend this further: what the fuck were the critics thinking? How can they see close up crotch shots of dancing children and think "yeah this is totally acceptable"? At least this guy knows what's up.

Oh, who am I kidding. It's the Europeans; the forefathers of grooming royalty kids until they're old enough to marry.

 

[AliceShiki]

I don't need to eat shit to know it's shit. I'm not so much of a sheep that I'll just listen to other people call shit "progressive" and follow what they say just because they're "movie critics". They're still human beings capable of making giant turds of mistakes and this is the biggest one yet.

I don't care if European critics go up in arms and claim the thing to be "progressive beyond belief". I can make my own judgement and, like most other people, see borderline child sexualisation without needing another person's opinion.

I think I'm gonna extend this further: what the fuck were the critics thinking? How can they see close up crotch shots of dancing children and think "yeah this is totally acceptable"? At least this guy knows what's up.

Yanno, the argument of not needing to taste works with things that you can actually evaluate without seeing it yourself... Like... Actual shit. Or cigarettes... Or alcohol... Or hallucinogenic mushrooms... Or pretty much anything that would be actively harmful for your health. You don't need to taste those things to know they're bad, as more than enough scientists said they're bad for your health.

I don't think the argument applies to entertainment though, as the measurement of how good or bad something is is fundamentally subjective to each person's opinion.

I do believe there are chances that the movie has more issues than good, but I don't think it makes any sense to judge it before watching it.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Yanno, the argument of not needing to taste works with things that you can actually evaluate without seeing it yourself... Like... Actual shit. Or cigarettes... Or alcohol... Or hallucinogenic mushrooms... Or pretty much anything that would be actively harmful for your health. You don't need to taste those things to know they're bad, as more than enough scientists said they're bad for your health.

Like I said, this can apply to stuff like skimpily dressed kids in a movie. This can be gauged on the same level because it's unequivocally bad.

I don't think the argument applies to entertainment though, as the measurement of how good or bad something is is fundamentally subjective to each person's opinion.

See above. Entertainment can be good or bad in anyone's taste, but when it involves harm, even indirectly, anyone should have the humanity in them to deem it as bad no matter how masterfully directed of a film is.

I do believe there are chances that the movie has more issues than good, but I don't think it makes any sense to judge it before watching it.

Oh how I wish, but just from the things I've seen in the trailer and knowing that they're gonna show this TENFOLD in the film itself, I think I can be a good enough judge to know this shit isn't gonna fly.

No matter how much you sugarcoat it, sexualising children, no matter the context, is bad. Bad in all fronts.

 

[yansusustories]

Like I said, this can apply to stuff like skimpily dressed kids in a movie. This can be gauged on the same level because it's unequivocally bad.

So I might out myself as a weirdo here now but: Are shorts and crop-tops really that outrageous for girls that age? Because I remember wearing mini-skirts and at least tank tops at that age And I for sure wasn't the only one in that age group who did. I never would have gone for crop tops but that was because I personally didn't like them (still don't).
Back then, nobody complained we were dressed like that (I actually got more comments about which color I chose than the actual articles) and if it's something that actual children that age would wear, I honestly don't see the issue with showing that in a movie. Like, 11/12 or maybe 13/14 if you're more conservative seems like precisely the age where children/teens start experimenting with clothing styles and find their own.

I do agree that it's strangely shot in some places from the trailer but I can't see an actual problem with the clothes that were shown there. Not all of them were super "skimpy" either but, like, even if it wasn't twerking (don't see the appeal in that either but that's personal as well) but cheerleading, for example, they wouldn't really be wearing much more?

 

[Jemini]

Honest question 1: Why are people using F-Word, C-Word and Dick instead of using F-Word, C-Word and D-Word? Or I dunno, Fuck, Clitoris and Dick? Or did I get the C-word wrong?
I mean, geez, it's not like the forums have advertisers that will censor our words, yanno?

Honest Question 2: Why are people so caught up in this stupid debate of the choice of words when the OP even apologized for their choice anyways?

Well, someone commented on how the term "pussy" is considered worse than "dick" in the language, and it's gender bias. I responded that the gender bias is worse than he thinks because the term "pussy" when used as slang to refer to a person does not mean the same thing that "dick" does. However, there's another word, "cunt," (the C-word) that's considered one of the worst swear words in the English language these days, it refers to female genetalia in the same manner "pussy" does, except that when it's used as a slang to refer to a person instead of the genetalia it has an almost exactly equivalent meaning and word usage to "dick."

The fact that the equivalent in meaning terms that refer to male and female genetalia are considered so different represents a huge gender bias.

After that comment, we got all sorts of people saying weird stuff about the relative rank of swear words and other random crap like someone trying to argue the words' meanings were different. (I've honestly not heard the terms used all that differently aside from the fact that "dick" is more often directed toward men and "cunt" is more often directed toward women while the actual behaviors among the people referred to by these terms is almost identical in nature. Only difference being that some people who don't want to use the C-word due to how scandalous it's considered to be might call a woman a "dick" instead.)

 

[BenJepheneT]

So I might out myself as a weirdo here now but: Are shorts and crop-tops really that outrageous for girls that age? Because I remember wearing mini-skirts and at least tank tops at that age And I for sure wasn't the only one in that age group who did. I never would have gone for crop tops but that was because I personally didn't like them (still don't).
Back then, nobody complained we were dressed like that (I actually got more comments about which color I chose than the actual articles) and if it's something that actual children that age would wear, I honestly don't see the issue with showing that in a movie. Like, 11/12 or maybe 13/14 if you're more conservative seems like precisely the age where children/teens start experimenting with clothing styles and find their own

Shorts not so much; though I'd question why cheek hugging, thigh high denims are available for children at that age.

Now crop tops is a hill I will die on. Midriff exposure, unless you're somewhere above 14 or 15 where you're way past puberty and know what you're doing to an extent, shouldn't be done by 11 year olds. They're just not mentally mature enough to understand what kind of fashion their wearing and might very well regret it in the future.

They can experiment whatever hell type of fashion sense they want, but keep that shit to a limit. Just as there's a reason we don't let 16 year olds experiment smoking or voting for presidents, there's an extent in which children should be allowed to experiment with.

If they grow up to be exposure freaks, then whoop de doo, but I think rest of the 99% wouldn't regret not wearing crop tops during their childhood years.

I do agree that it's strangely shot in some places from the trailer but I can't see an actual problem with the clothes that were shown there. Not all of them were super "skimpy" either but, like, even if it wasn't twerking (don't see the appeal in that either but that's personal as well) but cheerleading, for example, they wouldn't really be wearing much more?

I always question this: why do people fixate so much on putting children below the age of 12 in skin tight outfits and telling them to do cheerleading or whatever dance it is. What happened to simply putting on a cute unicorn themed or sparkly outfit of the past?

I can't believe I have to say this but to answer your question, yes. Don't put them in skin tight stretchable cotton that hugs their body to the point where you can see the curves of their figure. Whether they want to do it in the future or not, it's totally up to them, but don't risk letting the child do what they will likely regret in the future.

 

[Moonpearl]

I always question this: why do people fixate so much on putting children below the age of 12 in skin tight outfits and telling them to do cheerleading or whatever dance it is. What happened to simply putting on a cute unicorn themed or sparkly outfit of the past?

I can't believe I have to say this but to answer your question, yes. Don't put them in skin tight stretchable cotton that hugs their body to the point where you can see the curves of their figure. Whether they want to do it in the future or not, it's totally up to them, but don't risk letting the child do what they will likely regret in the future.

As a former cheerleader, I can tell you that it's because you need something that stretches and that you won't get caught up in when you're performing. It's a necessity for the sport.

There's nothing sexual about sports gear (or well-fitting crop tops), but it's deeply disturbing that some people can't even acknowledge that children have bodies without their minds jumping to sexual crap.

 

[yansusustories]

Shorts not so much; though I'd question why cheek hugging, thigh high denims are available for children at that age.

I guess I can see where you're coming from there. Then again, I don't want to see that on adults either but that's a me thing again

They can experiment whatever hell type of fashion sense they want, but keep that shit to a limit. Just as there's a reason we don't let 16 year olds experiment smoking or voting for presidents, there's an extent in which children should be allowed to experiment with.

I think the problem is that where to put that limit is a question that isn't that easily answered. Like, smoking has negative effects on your health. Voting has a lasting effect on society. Fashion? Not so much, I'd say. (Might be wrong there, who knows?) I'd personally consider fashion a form of art, actually, so I think letting kids explore that is just as valid as painting, learning instruments, or whatever. As long as no actual genitals or boobs hang out there, I think I'd personally be okay with it? Naturally, good parents should probably have a talk about acceptable settings for some stuff (e.g., you can wear this at home but please not in school) but I don't really think it's unacceptable per se.

I always question this: why do people fixate so much on putting children below the age of 12 in skin tight outfits and telling them to do cheerleading or whatever dance it is. What happened to simply putting on a cute unicorn themed or sparkly outfit of the past?

Well, I was personally never much into any kind of sports but from what I see for the most part (super crazy parents ignored), it's the children that want to give it a try because they simply like being active. And tbh, I get the appeal of cheerleading: It's both being active while also incorporating both choreography (something very creative), a feeling for rhythm (the choreo and movements needs to fit the rhythm), and teamwork (important skill and socially important especially at a young age). As for the clothes, I think I'm with @Moonpearl there: It's a practical issue.
Also, may I add that I simply love some of the outfits? Maybe not even so many cheerleading clothes (although those can be gorgeous too) but the type of stuff they wear for ice-skating for example. Those are sparkly and just super aesthetic. They are also very 'skimpy' but that doesn't take away from how gorgeous they are. In fact, I think the form also adds to the appeal but not even in a sexual manner but simply from an aesthetic point?

There's nothing sexual about sports gear (or well-fitting crop tops), but it's deeply disturbing that some people can't even acknowledge that children have bodies without their minds jumping to sexual crap.

To be honest, that's something I don't even get with adults oftentimes. Like, just wearing short clothes doesn't mean shit. It doesn't with adults and definitely doesn't with children. Can't they just like how it looks and wear it because of that?
I might have a slightly strange view of this because I see it very often in the ace community. Like, I've seen people comment so often that somebody can't be ace if they model for 'sexy' clothes but that has literally nothing to do with each other. If something looks sexual to somebody, it's likely on them? I'm not even sure if clothing in itself can be sexual?

 

[BenJepheneT]

As a former cheerleader, I can tell you that it's because you need something that stretches and that you won't get caught up in when you're performing. It's a necessity for the sport.

Huh, guess you learn something new everyday.

There's nothing sexual about sports gear (or well-fitting crop tops), but it's deeply disturbing that some people can't even acknowledge that children have bodies without their minds jumping to sexual crap.

Sports gear is a yes but well-fitting crop tops? Sorry that I can't look at midriffs and thigh high shorts and be reminded of fucking Hooters. They want to wear those kinds of clothes, least do it at home. Not outdoors or at school.

Naturally, good parents should probably have a talk about acceptable settings for some stuff (e.g., you can wear this at home but please not in school) but I don't really think it's unacceptable per se.

Yes. Please. This.

 

[yansusustories]

And this:

As a former cheerleader, I can tell you that it's because you need something that stretches and that you won't get caught up in when you're performing. It's a necessity for the sport.

Huh, guess you learn something new everyday.

Naturally, good parents should probably have a talk about acceptable settings for some stuff (e.g., you can wear this at home but please not in school) but I don't really think it's unacceptable per se.

Yes. Please. This.

is why I think that movie might not be as bad as it is made out to be. I think the original intent was bringing attention to the subject, make people discuss it, and then hopefully be more aware of these issues, and maybe even things that can be/could be done about it. And even before the movie is out everywhere, it has managed to do just that: We're discussing the issue even with some differing views which I think is especially great! There's no use for discussion in echo chambers.

Sure, the movie might not have done a great job at everything (although I'd say we don't necessarily know yet since, well, we haven't seen it) but the basic job it had has been achieved even despite (or maybe because of?) Netflix' vile marketing. And I actually think that there is even more discussion to be had about it when people have seen it and can weigh in on specific details.

To me, this really isn't a movie you'd watch just for enjoyment (because, yeah, some of it is likely very uncomfortable to watch) but one that you'd watch for one take at a certain subject. It's definitely not a movie for everyone (personally, I wouldn't watch it either) but I think it is or at least can be more than people are currently giving it credit for.

 

[BenJepheneT]

And this:


is why I think that movie might not be as bad as it is made out to be. I think the original intent was bringing attention to the subject, make people discuss it, and then hopefully be more aware of these issues, and maybe even things that can be/could be done about it. And even before the movie is out everywhere, it has managed to do just that: We're discussing the issue even with some differing views which I think is especially great! There's no use for discussion in echo chambers.

Sure, the movie might not have done a great job at everything (although I'd say we don't necessarily know yet since, well, we haven't seen it) but the basic job it had has been achieved even despite (or maybe because of?) Netflix' vile marketing. And I actually think that there is even more discussion to be had about it when people have seen it and can weigh in on specific details.

To me, this really isn't a movie you'd watch just for enjoyment (because, yeah, some of it is likely very uncomfortable to watch) but one that you'd watch for one take at a certain subject. It's definitely not a movie for everyone (personally, I wouldn't watch it either) but I think it is or at least can be more than people are currently giving it credit for.

Who fucking knows? Maybe this is the movie that'll finally end child trafficking once and for all. Who knew the thing that'll blow eastern Europe out of the water is four children in a discount Hooters cosplay?

I'll definitely be laughing my ass off if a pedo ring gets exposed JUST BECAUSE of this movie.

 

[Moonpearl]

Well, I was personally never much into any kind of sports but from what I see for the most part (super crazy parents ignored), it's the children that want to give it a try because they simply like being active. And tbh, I get the appeal of cheerleading: It's both being active while also incorporating both choreography (something very creative), a feeling for rhythm (the choreo and movements needs to fit the rhythm), and teamwork (important skill and socially important especially at a young age). As for the clothes, I think I'm with @Moonpearl there: It's a practical issue.
Also, may I add that I simply love some of the outfits? Maybe not even so many cheerleading clothes (although those can be gorgeous too) but the type of stuff they wear for ice-skating for example. Those are sparkly and just super aesthetic. They are also very 'skimpy' but that doesn't take away from how gorgeous they are. In fact, I think the form also adds to the appeal but not even in a sexual manner but simply from an aesthetic point?

Cheerleading is just good, clean fun. Some people fetishise the outfits - that's on them. I like nun outfits, but to hell if I'm going to start insisting that nunneries are nearly brothels.

Personally, I picked cheerleading because of Cardcaptor Sakura. Little girls doing cheerleading is just cute as a button. It's like watching them do ballet.

Huh, guess you learn something new everyday.

It's important on several fronts, just to elaborate.

Pretty obviously, if it's not stretchy, you're going to have a hell of a time doing splits, kicks, and other stuff.

But form-fitting is most important, in my eyes. If you have a lot of excess fabric when you're trying to do the splits, it will push you onto a funny angle on the floor. If you're wearing flowing clothes, you're going to get tangled in it when you do tumbles and put everyone at risk.
If you wear loose fitting clothes, the people who are holding you in lifts for safety won't be able to hold you as securely because part of their grip is holding your clothes rather than your body directly. If you start falling, loose clothing increases the risk that they won't be able to hold onto you as you go down, and you'll break something that way.

Also, as an extra tidbit, sequins are a no-no. They're the devil's hidden daggers when you're doing sport. I remember wearing a sequin top for a gymnastics class in infants school, and the pain was excruciating - like, every roll I did pushed those little fuckers into my skin until I came out with red marks.
I once had to hold a little brat who came in for cheerleading once and had worn a loose, full sequin top. Apparently she went home crying to her parents that I'd intentionally hurt her because her sequins dug in. Like, I was just trying to stop her from dying, but she loved her sequins too much for self-awareness.

Sports gear is a yes but well-fitting crop tops? Sorry that I can't look at midriffs and thigh high shorts and be reminded of fucking Hooters. They want to wear those kinds of clothes, least do it at home. Not outdoors or at school.

Kiddos are little balls of penguin fat with flat chests. They can wear whatever they want and, unless it's obviously someone forcing them into fetish gear, it's no problemo.

Some people associate dummies with their fetish, but they don't get to tell babies they're sexual for using dummies.

(Also, shorts that sit around the thigh have been the norm for kiddies since I was a little girl.)

 

[BenJepheneT]

(Also, shorts that sit around the thigh have been the norm for kiddies since I was a little girl.)

What the fuck kinda shit is this? The most I've seen are loose shorts. Same as the guys. What the fuck?

 

[Moonpearl]

What the fuck kinda shit is this? The most I've seen are loose shorts. Same as the guys. What the fuck?

Nope, always had these type of shorts. They were cotton for me, though - never denim. Seriously not sexy in the slightest.