The left-wing Slate magazine insisted that “right wing moral panic” and Breitbart News helped fuel the widespread and bipartisan backlash against Netflix with its release of the film Cuties, the butt-shaking and crotch-grabbing drama Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard called “child porn” that will “whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade.”
In a Slate article entitled “The Creepy Conservative Obsession With Netflix’s Cuties, Explained,” Sam Adams claims that Cuties “finds itself at the toxic intersection of QAnon delusion and right-wing moral panic, with a smattering of leftist outrage on the side.”
“Brietbart has posted about the movie a half-dozen times in the past two days, singling out critics who praised the film, several of whom have received death threats and been harassed off social media,” writes Adams, concluding that Breitbart — not the film that many have declared sexually exploits children — is the problem.
Adams says Cuties‘ critics cannot possibly know whether the film is “child pornography” unless they watch it for themselves.
“Those labeling it child pornography seem to have adopted a modified version of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s adage: They know it when they don’t see it,” writes Adams, who goes on to say that “by definition, pornography requires intent,” adding that the intent of Cuties director Maïmouna Doucouré “is clear.”
“The movie presents those images in order to critique them, in a way that could not possibly be more clear,” Adams insists.
If that is, in fact, true, as Adams says, someone should tell Netflix. The streaming giant apologized, said it was “deeply sorry for” sharing what it called “inappropriate artwork that we used for Cuties.” The photo, seen below, shows four girls in risqué poses. The poster is a scene from the film. Netflix apologized for sharing the poster, calling it “inappropriate.” But then defended the film. So, a poster showing an image from the film is “inappropriate” according to Netflix, but the film showing preteens twerking isn’t?
Adams also takes aim at Breitbart’s John Nolte, who writes that Cuties is “morally indefensible, an appalling act of sexual exploitation of young girls.”
Adams says Nolte believes “Cuties might turn perverts on.” Adams then admits that Nolte’s point about Cuties turning on pervert “may be true.”
To be clear, John Nolte merely shined a spotlight on how those praising Cuties’ parade of prepubescent girls’ crotches and butts as “defiance of a patriarchal order” — as the New Yorker did — are also the same people who would call dozens of camera close-ups on a legal-aged women’s butt and crotch sexist:
Naked Floyd holds the camera, and Naked Floyd can never get enough of prepubescent butts in tight jeans and short-shorts. Countless close-up of 11-year-old butts in tight pants. Bending, shaking, dry-humping. You won’t believe it.
What’s ironic is that if the girls were of age, Cuties’ defenders would be outraged over these close-ups, outraged over the camera’s “male gaze.”
But since Cuties is telling 11-year-old girls the path to enlightenment and growth is through humping the floor in a pair of Daisy Dukes, the “male gaze” is okay.
You see, corrupting little girls is woke, while guys enjoying a gander at a woman of legal age is the hideous patriarchy at work. Those are the rules now.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) is now leading lawmakers calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into Netflix for what Cotton called “peddling child pornography” after the streaming giant released the preteen twerking film.
“Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers,” noted Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), one of the lawmakers working alongside senator Cotton.
On Friday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) slammed Netflix, calling Cuties “child porn,” adding that the film will “whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade.”