Netflix’s “Cuties” Is So Much Worse Than We Thought and the Leftist Media Still Defends It

Kind of, but that might be an oversimplification of the response. This has been an ongoing cat-and-mouse game where YouTube adapts, but so do the creepy dudes. When I last heard, videos that predominantly feature children may be automatically flagged as ineligible for comment, advertisements, or the recommendation algorithm (that’s not a hard rule, the actual is more complex).

Old article, but here is one of the problems they had in 2019.

That said, people upload their own dance routines to social media all the time. Kids see adults uploading videos dancing to music, kids do the same. Some of these routines are undeniably sexual.

In general, I am a proponent of kids not being on or having access to social media. But I don’t think that will happen.


Also this is relevant too possibly . . .

The creepy dudes may go to viewing Tiktok.

Kids love Tiktok.


ThinkingSapien . . .

I am a proponent of kids not being on or having access to social media.

I think that is worth considering TS and is a great insight. (I posted a “like” based on it even).

How can you enforce that without obtaining biometric data? How would it be enforced? What kind of penalties for violations? What are the exceptions (i.e. parents watching a cartoon on YouTube with their kids)?

Disgusting, enabling pedophilia should be a criminal offense.

1 Like

I recently found out that the film is French. I think the French particularly have an issue with paedophilia in their culture. They only recently got an adequate age of consent law, which (off the top of my head) was necessitated by the fact that some adult men got away with sleeping with an 11 year old due to problems with their laws in regards to statutory rape.

Netflix also has a documentary on the effects of the Internet/apps/social media on people that expressed concern for younger minds (no 11-year old twerking girls in this one). At the end of the documentary, someone suggested just keeping kids off of social media until they are 16.

The documentary is titled “The Social Delima.”

Social Media Can Negatively Affect Kids’ Self-Worth

One of the most disturbing elements of The Social Dilemma is just how much regularly using smartphones can negatively affect a kid’s self-worth.

“These technology products were not designed by child psychologists who are trying to protect and nurture children,” says Tristan Harris — a former Google design ethicist and the cofounder of the Center For Humane Technology — in the film.

He notes that social media can negatively impact children’s mental health. “It’s not just that it’s controlling where they spend their attention,” he explains. “Especially social media starts to dig deeper and deeper down into the brain stem and take over kids’ sense of self-worth and identity.”

According to the documentary, there are also alarming statistics to back up this concept. After all, anyone with an online profile knows how fleeting that happy sensation — or “fake, brittle popularity,” as Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook’s former VP of growth, calls it — feels when you get likes on an Instagram post.

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD, a professor at the NYU Stern School of Business, explains that the damning effect social media has on young adults is palpable.

“There has been a gigantic increase in depression and anxiety for American teenagers which began right between 2011 and 2013,” he says. “The number of teenage girls out of 100,000 in this country who were admitted to a hospital every year because they’ve cut themselves or otherwise harmed themselves . . . was pretty stable until around 2010, 2011, and then it [began to go] way up.”

According to the documentary, the amount of United States hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm has gone up by 62 percent for girls between the ages of 15 and 19. For girls who fall into the 10 to 14 age range, the figure has increased by 189 percent since social media became mainstream.

Experts are seeing the same trend with suicide rates. Suicides in teen girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have increased by 70 percent compared to the first decade of the century. The suicide rate of preteen girls (between the ages of 10 and 14) has increased by 151 percent in the same time frame, according to Dr. Haidt. Although experts can’t say that social media, specifically, has caused these alarming trends, the correlation is unsettling.

I doubt anyone on this thread that is criticizing it have actually watched to formulate their own opinion.
Do you know what your own 11/12 year old child/grandchild does in the privacy of their own bedroom? Unless your child/grandchild is a tomboy interested only in softball like mine, than you might be alarmed what you might discover what they do in their bedroom behind closed doors or at slumber parties.

Could not find proof of this.

But the reviews are equally bad and good.

Here are some against the critics.






Sigh, I’ve got some uncomfortable insight into that. A friend of mine that is not good with computers wanted me to monitor her child’s internet activity. I did so (with the child’s knowledge) with a clear criteria on what type of matters to alert the parent about. The discussions and concerns of children below the age of 13 are not necessarily PG-13.

There was a discussion of what a classmate had done. One girl at school took a picture of a part of her body and sent it to a boy on snap chat. She believed since the picture was self-deleting it was safe. The boy took a screenshot and shared it with his friends. Basically, these were children that were involved in the production of CP (a felony offense) and the distribution of CP (also a felony offense). But such occurrences were common. Some have made the news.

I was on a bus last year where a rather er frank conversation the mechanics of oral sex was going on behind me. I turned around expecting to find an adult, instead there was a girl who was around 14 or so going on about that on the phone. Had it been an adult I was going to ask them to shut up as we were well into hard core porn territory with the language going on but let it go as it was a kid. Eventually it went on so long and got so ridiculous the bus driver used the tannoy to ask her to step of his bus.

A well known gang initiation ritual in this area of London for teenage girls involves numerous colours of lipstick applied to male genitals of boys in the gang and the girl is expected to er, ‘apply herself’ till she has a rainbow of colours on her mouth. After this all the boys will acts as her ‘protector’ but she is obliged to keep rendering ‘services’ as needed to her ‘homies’. We are talking about girls here in the age range of 13-16 years old generally and people visiting from my wife’s home thought I was making this stuff up till they saw the way gang kids behave around here. My wife’s friend has two teenage daughters who have been approached several times at school to ask if they want to do stuff like this and partake of the ‘benefits’. Neither fortunately are stupid or naive enough to get involved. But other girls are and these boys are often a bit older and know who to pick.

RidgeSprinter . . .

I doubt anyone on this thread that is criticizing it have actually watched to formulate their own opinion.

It is irrelevant.

You don’t have to be in an airplane accident to realize nobody should go there if possible.

It is a poorly reasoned “argument”.


RidgeSprinter again . . .

Do you know what your own 11/12 year old child/grandchild does in the privacy of their own bedroom?

You attempting to personalize this with me is inappropriate.

I am not going to support child pornography.

Irrespective of you, it is disappointing to see people coming out in support or even expressing neutrality regarding “cuties”.

I think your argument is irrelevant. You’re comparing objective facts (plane down, Y injured, X fatalities) with the subjective evaluation of others who may, or may not, have seen it.

The trashing of the film by those who haven’t seen it is like saying to someone his sister is ugly, without ever having seen her or even a photo of her, just because of something she said or did.

From what I’ve read of the film, it was intended to shock, not titillate, and was a semi-autobiographical portrayal of the Senegalese producer’s life when she was approximately the same age, and the clash of cultures she experienced between the very liberal West and her conservative Senegalese Muslim upbringing.

Pornography is of course in the eye of the beholder… especially when no graphic nudity or sex is involved.

It’s not on my “must watch” list by any stretch, but I’m not going give in to herd mentality either, by trashing it just because of what others say.


OraLabora . . .

The trashing of the film by those who haven’t seen it is like saying to someone . . .

No it isn’t. You can read and see enough for yourself without seeing child porn. (You equivocated my airplane accident example too. This is fallacious argumentation by you here.)

You don’t have to see the movie to condemn it.

I am disapoointed you would attempt to make such an argument.

You are wrong.

OraLabora . . .

From what I’ve read of the film, it was intended to shock, not titillate . . .

I am not interested in what the pornographers proclaim their intentions to be.


OraLabora . . .

Pornography is of course in the eye of the beholder… especially when no graphic nudity or sex is involved.

Sure. :wink:

I’ll bet a lot if child pornographers use that excuse to the police OraLabora.


1 Like

It is of course false. And offensive.


We had already an legal age of sexual majority, that is 15 years old.

Sadly some court had judged that some men who had slept with 11 years old girls were not guilty of rape because there were no coercicion, the girls didn’t said no or defend themselves, there were no violence or surprise.

As there was a judirical emptiness and polemic, the government thank of creating an age of automatical presumed “non- consentment”, but it was abandonned because there would have risks of being non constitutional. (for eg, a 18 years old sleeping with his 14 years old girlfriend would be considered as a rapist and jailed).

So the governement voted for a law against sexual and sexist violences. A underage person until 15 years old is now considered as a vulnerable one who is not able to discern thoses acts, so it is coercicion or surprise.

To note, the filmaker had said in interviews she was shocked by these ruling and that the children cannot be responsible of these acts. That’s what she wants to show in her movie. That was before the international polemic.

1 Like

From Breitbart . . . .

Nolte: Elite Media Defend ‘Cuties’ While Covering Up Most Salacious Content from Readers


18 Sep 2020

The child porn-loving media are doing two underhanded things to defend Netflix’s Cuties: 1) claim only conspiracy theorists are attacking the movie, and 2) refuse to accurately and completely describe the actual content in Cuties.

The conspiracy theory trope, which I addressed this week, is especially dumb and disingenuous. Apparently, the right-wing conspiracy works like this: America’s political, media, and Hollywood elites are all (child abusers).

Now I don’t believe that any more than I believe all Catholic priests are (child abusers) . . .

. . . . What’s so fascinating and revealing about this is how the media are forced to lie in order to defend Cuties . A lie of omission is still a lie, and almost all of these oh-so-sophisticated defenses of Cuties refuse to inform readers of just what these 11-yeard-old characters do and what the camera does to them.

Hey, if you’re going to defend Cuties , you not only have to detail and defend all the wide-open, 11-year-old ***** shots, you have to defend the motive for including those shots looooong after the point’s been made.

An honest person would say to their readers: here’s all the disturbing content; here’s how the director exploited a group of 12- and 13-year-old actresses; here are all the sophisticated reasons that make it okay to do that.

But no one’s willing to detail the truth because they know if they do, everyone will know they’re defending the indefensible.

Oh, sure, some allude to the content — how it’s “daring” and “provocative.” But that means nothing. . . .

NBC News say (Cuties) does not “sexualize” its characters . . .

. . . Does not sexualize….

Deliberately provocative choreography…

That’s it… That’s all whoever’s dumb enough to get their news from NBC is allowed to know about what the little girls do in Cuties.

Why not lay out the facts?

I’ll tell you why not. Because the facts are this…

On countless occasions, the camera in Cuties lingers on 11-year-olds . . .

. . . Why not inform your readers of that truth and then fire off your ******* about how Cuties “does not sexualize,” how all of that only adds up to “deliberately provocative choreography.”

You can’t.

Which is why these liars won’t.

Get a load of the far-left Slate . . .

. . . Slate isn’t angry because I lied or exaggerated.

Slate is angry because I told the truth.

The far-left Washington Post , the same Washington Post that handed its religion coverage to an occultist without telling us, has defended Cuties more times than I can count. It’s like a cottage industry over there. . . .

Parenthetical and stars mine.

1 Like

Breitbart in the above story appropriately jumbled the child photos (in the inappropriate areas where they should never have been filmed against these children anyway).

I purposefully did not link the above because in my opinion, I did not want even those blurred-out photos appearing here on CAF even in the photos from the LINK.

Never-the-less, with the story quoted, you can easily duckduckgo it, and see for yourself if you are so inclined.

See if I am right or
see if the defenders of this shenanigans are right.

See what the defenders are defending.

Draw your own conclusions.

It is pretty easy to draw the correct conclusions that the people doing this movie should be jailed for abusing these children for those that see it and are honest.


Reminds me of those comics featuring grisly crime stories, that ended with the last panel showing the perps getting arrested. Were people really reading those comics for the last panel or for all the gore that made up the other 95% of the comic?

To the readers here:

I mentioned:

You don’t have to be in an airplane accident to realize nobody should go there if possible.

OraLabora’s retort was . . . .

You’re comparing objective facts (plane down, Y injured, X fatalities) with the subjective evaluation of others who may, or may not, have seen it.

Using that “logic” you just never know if being in a plane accident is good, bad, or neutral.

Of course that “logic” is wrong.

OraLabora. I want to invite you to go the the pictures and article from the link that I posted here, duckduckgo it.

Just put in duckduckgo . . .

“Nolte: Elite Media Defend ‘Cuties’ While Covering Up Most Salacious Content from Readers”

It will come up first (I just checked it).

Go to the Breitbart site duckduckgo gives you.

Look at the direct “Cutie” screenshots for yourselves and read the article for yourself to contextualize it.

Then come back here and defend “Cuties” if you think that is so potentially worthy of defense.
(That is, if you really mean what you said.)

I will be waiting.

ROMANS 3:8 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.


Even Pelosi’s daughter gets it.


Netflix film ‘Cuties’ is morally indefensible: Girls should never be sexually exploited to get a message across

You can’t perpetrate an injustice in order to expose an injustice.

Fri Sep 18, 2020

September 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Most of you will already have seen (or read about) the backlash to the Netflix release Cuties , a film about a dance troupe of pre-pubescent girls filled with sexualized imagery, close-up crotch shots, and other disturbing content. #CancelNetflix trended on Twitter for days. Netflix stock began to tumble. . . . At least we could all agree that this went too far.

… Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine Pelosi, for example, tweeted this: “…from a customer and former ADA in SFDA’a Child Abuse-Sexual Assault Unit: ‘Cuties’ hypersexualizes girls… no doubt to the delight of pedophiles like the ones I prosecuted. Cancel this, apologize, work with experts to heal your harm.”

… Tulsi Gabbard . . . Netflix, you are now complicit.”…

. . . These long think pieces attempting to defend the indefensible did precisely the opposite of what they were intending to do . . . Defending child porn. . .

. . . “moral panic.” I’ve seen several on social media actually claim that conservatives got this film precisely wrong —this is not a film that sexualizes children, they say, but a film that exposes the problems with the sexualization of children. After all, the film is about a girl from a conservative Muslim family who joins a twerking dance troupe . . .

. . . What these Cuties defenders are claiming is that you can perpetrate an injustice in order to expose an injustice. If you show a film about a murder in order to expose what happened, for example, the re-enactment does not feature an actual murder. When you sexualize little girls to point out that sexualizing little girls is wrong, you are actually perpetrating the thing you claim to be condemning. . .

…the child actors were exploited not only in the sexualized behavior they were paid to perform onscreen, but also in the lines they were told to memorize. . . . Dreher notes that in one scene, the girls are watching porn (or pretending to) on a cell phone in a bathroom. As they watch, they describe to one another what they are watching—and the sex acts they discuss are vile. . .

These children had to memorize this dialogue and perform it on camera. They also had to learn how to stroke their crotches, twerk, put their fingers in their mouths suggestively, and move like strippers mimicking vigorous intercourse. The actors are children. Simply to play their roles, they had to have their innocence taken from them by the filmmaker . . .

Bold mine.


I’m French Canadian. I don’t shock easily. Yes the scenes are lewd. The article however, contextualizes nothing. I had to go to French sites to have a more balanced view of the film. Without the film’s context, not some Breitbart commentator’s, it’s impossible to fairly assess the merit… or not… of the film, and the necessity…or not… of the lewd scenes to reinforce the film’s social message (yes, there is one, and contrary to what many here think, it is not to promote the sexualizing of children but rather to condemn it).

It still sounds to me like the right looking for any excuse to bash the “left”.

I’m neither defending, nor condemning the film. I haven’t seen it, I’ve only read the “context” from reliable sources in France like Le Monde (left-leaning) and Le Figaro (right-leaning and generally pro-Church), the latter which calls the US right’s crusade against it a “misunderstanding”.

Isn’t this just another variant on McCarthyism which sees, instead of a commie in every closet, a pedophile?

BTW what is your working definition of pornography? I’m pretty sure that real pedophiles aren’t interested in this film, they can find far more explicit material, unfortunately, on the Dark Web. For the record, this is the definition in the Catechism:

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

In my opinion, this definition is in fact too narrow. Technically, by this definition, a Playboy centrefold isn’t “pornography”. Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly is sexual exploitation.

I think this whole kerfuffle is in fact a clash of cultures. Try this description from Le Figaro for better context (my translation):

Raised in France in a family of 10 children from two mothers, Maïmouna Doucouré also addresses the issue of polygamy in her film. “in a way, my character in Mignonnes is torn between two feminine oppressions. That which her mother inflicts on herself by accepting being in a polygamous marriage, and another she finds by searching for a so-called freedom in which she loses herself”, according to Maïnouna Doucouré’s analysis. Thinking herself freed from the family straitjacket through dance, Amy adopts a “bad girl*” character and the sexy looks of rap culture, without realizing she has a price to pay: the loss of her innocence".

Stéphanie O’Brien, Le Figaro, Aug. 17 2020

*an expletive was used instead of “girls” but it got my post blocked. Reissued without the expletive.

Seems rather more balanced than what I read on Breitbart.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit