Free Speech

Contrary to What Ted Cruz Thinks, Prepubescent Twerking Does Not Make Cuties Illegal

The federal definition of child pornography does not encompass risqué dancing by clothed 11-year-olds.


The French film Cuties, currently available on Netflix, has outraged American politicians who say it sexualizes prepubescent girls. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a former presidential contender, warns that Cuties, which depicts an 11-year-old's participation in a risqué dance troupe that flouts the values of her conservative Muslim family, "will certainly whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade." Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) goes even further, suggesting that Cuties is illegal. Whatever your take on the film's merits, Cruz presents no evidence to substantiate that claim.

In a letter he sent Attorney General William Barr on Friday, Cruz urges the Justice Department to "investigate the production of 'Cuties' and Netflix's distribution of the film in order to determine whether Netflix, any of its executives, or anyone involved with the making of 'Cuties' violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography." But he conspicuously fails to explain how the film runs afoul of those statutes.

"The film routinely fetishizes and sexualizes these pre-adolescent girls as they perform dances simulating sexual conduct in revealing clothing, including at least one scene with partial child nudity," Cruz writes. "These scenes in and of themselves are harmful. And it is likely that the filming of this movie created even more explicit and abusive scenes, and that pedophiles across the world in the future will manipulate and imitate this film in abusive ways."

Except for Cruz's fact-free speculation about scenes that did not make it into the final movie, none of this supports his claim that Cuties qualifies as child pornography, which federal law defines as a "visual depiction" of "sexually explicit conduct" involving people younger than 18. While the definition encompasses "simulated sexual intercourse," that phrase is not broad enough to cover the scenes described by Cruz.

As the Supreme Court explained in a 2008 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, "'simulated' sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have occurred." Scalia added that "the portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera." Similarly, a 2008 rule issued by the Justice Department says "simulated sexually explicit conduct means conduct engaged in by performers in a visual depiction that is intended to appear as if the performers are engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, and does so appear to a reasonable viewer."

Twerking by clothed 11-year-old dancers, however much it may trouble politicians and parents, plainly does not fit that description. Nor does the film's potential appeal to pedophiles transform it into contraband.

As The New York Times notes, Cuties director Maïmouna Doucouré, who based the protagonist on her own experiences as a child of Senegalese immigrants growing up in Paris, says she is disturbed by some of the same cultural tendencies that bother Cruz and Gabbard:

"I recreated the little girl who I was at that age," she said. "Growing up in two cultures is what gave me the strength and the values I have today."

"As a child, that question of how to become a woman was my obsession," she added.

Ms. Doucouré has said the idea for the film came to her after she attended a neighborhood gathering in Paris where she saw a group of 11-year-olds performing a "very sexual, very sensual" dance. She said she spent a year and a half doing research and meeting with hundreds of preteens to prepare for the film.

"I needed to know how they felt about their own femininity in today's society and how they dealt with their self-image at a time when social media is so important," she told Netflix.

The more sexualized a woman appears on social media, the more girls will perceive her as successful, Ms. Doucouré said.

"Children just imitate what they see to achieve the same result without understanding the meaning," she said. "And yeah, it's dangerous."

According to Netflix, Cuties is "a social commentary against the sexualization of young children." Whether or not you buy that, the legality of Cuties does not hinge on the director's motivation or the film's anticipated social effects.

NEXT: Milton Friedman Accused of Making Corporations Greedy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oof. Big yikes.
    What Roy Moore did was technically legal. Did that change the rhetoric around it?

    1. Robby may be right about the legality. I just don't think this is the right headline.
      There's a serious possibility that although the final cut doesn't meet the definition, that doesn't mean nothing happened during the production that amounts to sexual abuse of child pornography. I can't say looking into it would be the worst use of time.
      There's been a lot of CPS reports based on much less.

      1. I think Cruz is right. The definition includes actual or simulated sexual activity. How is a girl grabbing her crotch pretending to masturbate not simulated sexual activity?

        1. And you watched this?

          1. Likely more than once.

            1. Buttplug would, of it featured a prepubescent boy. Chemjeff would support the right to abuse the child especially if the abuse was committed by an illegal.

              1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home.CMs Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page… CashApp

            2. So you agree it is child porn? Otherwise, how is that an insult?

          2. No. Why would I? Do you have any evidence the descriptions of it are wrong?

        2. Did you bother to read the article? It describes the legal standard pretty clearly.

          For those who need help, when you (or a reasonable person) can recognize it as "pretending", then by your own observation it is not sufficiently "simulated" for it to be illegal.

          1. Did you read his links because they contradict his reasoning and they are actually regulations and cases dealing with actors 13-18 years of age, however federal regulations for children under 12 are different, which Sollum ignored).

            1. Reason writer lies, and water is wet

              1. Ditto! Reason is becoming a left leaning magazine!

                1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home.NBs I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

                  This is what I do....................... CashApp

            2. Applying a standard reserved for adults becomes irrelevant with a child, just as does "consent". The writer's argument would also suggest photographing nude children for pedos to be completely legal because it doesn't depict a sexual act. Perhaps someone should check under Sollum's bed, and definitely his computer. Such bastards need to be called out and shunned. Normally I'd go with a public flogging as well, but chances are high that would play right into Sollum's predilections.

            3. re: "federal regulations for children under 12 are different"

              I think you are referring to 18 U.S.C.§ 2241 which does criminalize "engag[ing] in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years". But the definition of a "sexual act" applicable to that section are spelled out in 18 U.S.C.§ 2246(2) and requires actual contact with genitalia. Simulations cannot trigger that law.

              Or are you thinking of some other statute? I will freely admit that the Federal Code is so absurdly large and complex that I could have missed something.

        3. From a moral perspective, this is abhorrent = sexualizing young girls.

          Set aside the legality for a moment. How on earth did our country ever get to a place where blatant sexualization of 11-year old girls is not only broadcast into American homes, but glamorized?

          1. Oh, so you've seen Dance Moms.

          2. Miss Teen USA?

      2. There are men in prison based on less.

      3. From what I've seen, it s mothers who, " sexualizes prepubescent girls". Dress makeup and behavior sexually oriented.

    2. OK, I am totally down that Roy Moore was a seriously creepy dude.

      But, I am going to go out on a really dangerous lim here and point out the fact that the girls that ol' Roy perved over were in fact completely sexually mature females.

      There really is a difference between feeling sexual attraction for a prepubescent girl and feeling sexual attraction for a sexually mature teenage female.

      Juliet was fourteen years old. Quite frankly, most of us do not not have to go back very far in our family tree to find a grandXsomething-mother who was a teenager.

      That said, just 'cause Ted Cruz is wrong about the legality here he is certainly right that this is disgusting. I recall back when the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" happen posting her that I found it disturbing that for some reason suburban mothers were somehow more disturbed by their children seeing a bare breast than they were about the 15-20 minutes of simulated sex onstage that had preceded it.

      1. Just to add to the second paragraph, they were women who only a few years before were totally legal to marry in Alabama.

        I recall one couple I met during my travels as an engineer in heavy construction; they were from Alabama, he was a crane operator and he had married her when she was fourteen years old.

        It was a significant part of the culture shock that I experienced moving th the Southern USA. 🙂

        1. "But, I am going to go out on a really dangerous lim here and point out the fact that the girls that ol’ Roy perved over were in fact completely sexually mature females."

          The limb you are upon is called the English language. Pedophilia involves the sexually immature. Hebephilia involves the pubescent.

          Regardless, they still filmed minors engaged in simulated sexual acts. Something that no doubt required instruction and encouragement. Which may not meet the linguistic definition, but sure crosses the legal line.

          The hills this publication chooses to die upon - given what the Governors of New York and New Jersey did to their nursing home residents, or what the Governor of California is doing to religious liberty - continues to amaze me.

          No bar too low.

          1. Roy was an ephebophile, BTW.

        2. In fact, they were ALL women who were totally legal to marry in Alabama. That's why the Democrats altered a school yearbook in an attempt to frame him in regards to one girl who actually would have been under age: Because he'd actually been scrupulously observing the legal age of consent.

        3. You must not know much about marriages back in the day. It was very common for girls to marry as young as 13. There are a lot of couples like that and definitely not just in the south.

          1. I dunno, but I'm pretty sure my comment made perfectly clear that I absolutely do know about marriages back in the day. The point is that "back in the day" was a lot more recent in Alabama and Mississippi than it was in a lot of the rest of the world.

            In 1957, Jerry Lee lewis lost almost all of his English fans over his marriage to his 13-year-old cousin. He had been extremely popular there before that.

        4. The idea of marrying early was not exclusive to the American South. It was common in many cultures throughout millennia.

          1. P.S. Not that I would condone such a thing in this day.

      2. Quite so.

    3. ¦A¦M¦A¦Z¦I¦N¦G¦ ¦J¦O¦B¦S¦
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…….COPY HERE====Flysalary

    4. I couldn’t even watch this. Jesus h Khrist how can they even defend this? Close up pelvic shots and long pauses so they could just take the view in. What a shit hole movie. It’s the state of media today.

    5. It should be. That crap is going to ruin lives when those girls get sexually abused at that age.

  2. Reason goes full leftist.
    At least they're not even pretending anymore.

    But I am glad that the left has picked the "child sexuality" hill to die on.
    And it amuses me that they're dragging down libertarianism with it - as if you guys didn't have enough trouble trying to deny approval of pedophilia before...

    1. They are going to die on sex with ten year old girls and ten year old boys dressing like drag queens so old perverts can dream about sodomizing them. That is the reason position today. It is amazing that people can become that morally depraved. But they can and sadly have.

      1. People mocked conservatives during the late 20th century and early 21sr century who warned that normalizing homosexuality would lead to normalizing pedophilia. I am all for normalizing homosexuality, and all for letting adults do whatever they want with other consenting adults, but it is increasingly looking like maybe those stick in the mud conservatives might have had a point. ???

        1. They were right. That is where it ended up. I don't think it had to end up here. But the fact remains it did and the conservatives who said it would were proven correct.

          1. Unfortunately I lean towards agreeing with you. The more letters we added to the alphabet soup the more inevitable this became. And just for the record I consider myself either heteroflexible or bisexual.

            1. Like Dr venture of the venture Brothers I have tripolar disorder

              1. You mean that you’ll “tri” putting your “pole” in anybody?

                1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home.NBs I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

                  This is what I do....................... CashApp

          2. Lets not make sweeping generalizations about individuals that happen to be homosexual. (My parents, WWII generation had gay friends in southern New Jersey growing up). I have plenty of LGT friends that are in no way pedophiles. They are NOT moral relativists and do believe in right and wrong, they sexually prefer the same sex thats all. They are fiscally and socially conservative, some have families. I'm sure there are plenty of straights that are pedophiles or leaning that way (thinking of Joe Biden, Clinton and Epstein).

            All of this crap going on in the U.S. is a resurgence and teaching of post modernism (critical race theory, BLM, democratic socialists, Marx, Mao, Intersectionality). There are no facts, no individuals, no right or wrong. There is only collective experience. This is exactly why the DNC put a multi-day torturer and murderer on the stage of that convention, while the African American History Museum put up the linear thinking, work ethic and nuclear family is a "white thing". There should be a class action lawsuit from hard working black people against that museum, and one on the DNC from Donna Hyltons victims family.

            1. I wasn't making a remark about homosexuals, but about the activists.

              1. Oops, a reply to John

                1. It's hard to track sometimes when I am posting on my phone. The smart phone format isn't exactly the most intuitive as to which comment is linked to which comment.

            2. It ended up here because the same activists who pushed for gay rights just moved to something else and used the same language and justification. It was never about gays. I was always about destroying society. Gays were just the first useful tool.

              1. Prior to 1982. The gay rights movement advocated for lowering or eliminating age of consent laws. NAMBLA was part of the the mainstream movement. They finally figured out that this was a political loser and was hamstringing their efforts. So they removed that part of their platform and kicked NAMBLA to the curb.

        2. I don't think it was the "normalization" that led down this road, but rather the outright promotion.

          1. Probably more correct. I mean how normal are most pride parades? I am generally not a prude, but come on.

            1. I've been to one in Atlanta.
              It was fun.
              But it struck me how much corporate sponsorship there was and how many little kids were there - with way too much pantomimed sex acts and dudes in assless chaps or leather bdsm gear.
              I understand that sexual orientation is what distinguishes gay from straight, but why should gay people's entire identity revolve around sex?
              If they had valentines day parades and it was mostly straight couples pantomiming blowjobs and wearing nothing but leather bdsm gear... wouldn't that be weird?* Isn't straight dudes talking on and on and exclusively about the women they bang a bit off-putting?
              So why is that accepted, expected, and promoted for the gay community?

              *Pagans certainly celebrated sexuality, and I agree - but they did so within a metaphysical, symbolic and ritual framework. The way it's done at a pride parade is pure narcissistic hedonism

              1. well said nardz. i have family members who are gay and we have had this conversation a few times. why does a celebration of gay pride have to involve some guy in assless chaps riding a giant dick float down the middle of the street. the excessive flamboyance distracts the viewer and ultimately detracts from the message. i dont understand what purpose this serves. all it really does is reinforce gay stereotypes.

                1. Agreed. I know a number of homosexuals who disagree with pride parades because of these types of displays.

                2. Gotta break it to you: Stereotypes usually became stereotypes for a reason. Doesn't mean everybody in the group conforms to them, but it's almost always the case that some segment of the group does.

            2. The Onion, a few years ago. (I'm amazed they haven't scrubbed it from the internet yet.)

              Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

              "WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade."

        3. Shouldn't polygamy have been somewhere between gays and full-on NAMBLA?

          1. No because the mormons like polygamy, and mormons are too close to icky christians.

            1. As KillAllRednecks constantly displays in his constant call for the genocide of Mormons.

              1. If consenting adults wanna have multiple wives/husband's/whatever's that's fine. Many Mormon polygamists are essentially human traffickers. When your main prophets are pedophiles con-artists that tends to happen. Won't be a problem when they're in the gas chambers. You'll be in there too loser, sucker for being a Mormon loving coward.

                1. Keep proving how big a bigot you are. You can't help it. BTW, the mainstream LDS church has condemned polygamy since the 1890s and it is ground for automatic excumunicatiom these days. Once again you prove your ignorance. But then again most bigots are ignorant so no surprise. Don't you have a Nazi dick you need to suck incel?

                  1. By Mormon polygamists I was referring to the offshoots that still practice it. Not the LDbS church. Keep laughing loser sucker. You're gonna end up in the gas chamber with your Mormon family.

                    1. Which aren't recognized as Mormons you fucking bigot. They have been disowned by the church but in your bigoted statement you didn't differentiate until I called you on your bigotry. Keep posting please, you just keep undercutting any argument that you could ever offer on any subject in the future. Everyone sees you for the bigot that you are. And like a dog coming back to eat it's own vomit you can't help yourself.

                    2. Well they all cla to be the spiritual successors to the Con Artist pedophile and they have mostly the same scriptures as the LDS church. Calling them "polygamist mormons" or "fundamentalist mormons" is pretty goddamn standard. It's funny your being picky about vocabulary. Is it because you know I'm right? Yes it is! No shut the fuck up you inbred, white trash Nazi. Hope your daughter is raped.

                    3. And you double down with even more repulsive behavior. Keep up the good work.

                  2. Ha! A fucking right singer from Montana calling me a Nazi! Good one! You're just mad I called out your bullshit lies! Mormons weren't killed for being Mormon during the Holocaust. I'm sure you're cunt Mormon mom lied to you because Mormons are liars. They cannot be trusted. When the US is a theocracy run by those greedy SOBs you'll be crying "oh why didnt I listen to that guy? He knew exactly what he was talking about." Your Mormon family belongs in gas chambers!

                    1. With apologies to Tony, you're my knew favorite leftist

                    2. "A fucking right singer from Montana calling me a Nazi! ... Your Mormon family belongs in gas chambers!"

                      Yes, no one saw that coming. /sarcasm

                    3. I don't have to call you a Nazi you keep proving it for me without me having to call you one.

                    4. Your bigotry has been flagged.

                  3. Is this another Buttplug or AmSoc sockpuppet? Or is this shitbag a new progtard?

                2. If Rev and Rob Misek has a child...

                    1. The funny thing is he doesn't realize I mention him just so he will act like this and keep proving his bigotry (which he denies BTW).

          2. They tried, but for some reason (maybe Illocust is right about polygamy and Mormons) it didn't take but pedophilia seems to have.

            1. Killallrednecks trying to describe how he isn't a bigot is like the Southpark episode where kanya tries to explain how Kim Kardashian isn't a hobbit

              1. I'll admit I'm a bigot towards Mormons because they deserve it. Most mormons are bigots towards gays, non whites, no christian. No one is forcing them to believe the nonsense they believe. They're bringing their fate on themselves. That episode of SP sucked anyway.

                1. You keep damning a whole group and trying to justify your hate and bigotry based upon ignorance and gross generalizations. and just like a dog returning to eats it own vomit you keep rising to the bait and keep exposing your bigotry for everyone to see.

                2. Also do you condemn Muslims for the same reason? Because everything you mistakingly claim about Mormons is not only true of many Muslims but they also actually kill gays, ban drinking etc. and do believe in taking over the world and forcing everyone to convert to their religion and are willing to use force to do it.

                  1. I don't think we should lol muuslims. I honestly don't know what to do about them. Their culture is centuries old and across the world. Mormons are only less than centuries old and are undermining our government as we speak. Look at fucking crazy ass Mike Lee. He thinks climate change can be solved by reproducing more. No matter how you feel toward climate change and government action towards it having as many kids as possible is fucking crazy. They're trying to take over the goddamn country. Once they have they will impose their lifestyle on the rest of us. They think they're doing a good thing but they're evil fucking pieces of trash. And so are you for defending them.

                    1. Ah, so we have to send Mormons to gas chambers in self defense!

                    2. How much evil have Muslims done in the name of Islam as compared to evil done by Mormons in the name of the LDS?

                    3. So basically, your fine with saying Mormons should be put into Gas chambers for underage polygamy but you are afraid to say the same thing about Islamists for underage polygamy.

                      Why? Because you are a Coward, as well as, a bigot.

          3. This is the weird part to me. The left pretends like the issue is solved.....but there are still adults who can not be in the relationship they want with one another because of the law. Why do Bob & Steve get to be married, but add in Tina and suddenly it's illegal?

            I'm sure when the polls shift, so will they.

        4. @soldiermedia76

          It seems to me that the opposite of what you say is true. Pedophilia is less normalized than ever right now. When I listen to music or watch movies that are only a few decades old, it is astounding how squicky a lot of them are. There are so many popular songs from the late 20th century about adults having sex with underage teens, it is unnerving (the first that come to mind are "Christine Sixteen" and "That Summer"). And it doesn't really seem like a movie like "Milk Money" (1994) could get made today, even a movie like that that is all innuendo and misunderstanding would still upset people.

          I think the reason people are claiming pedophilia is normalized in today's society is the same reason progressives are claiming today's society is full of white supremacism. Because our society is so vehemently against both of those things, even small signs of them set off a massive response. People freak out and catastrophize. Anyone who urges we respond with restraint, caution, and forethought (Jacob Sullum, for instance) is accused of being on the side of the enemy.

          1. Hmmm, not so certain I agree with you. There is a number of modern movies on streaming services that depict (in a positive or at least not negative light) homosexual relations between actors portraying underage males in romantic relationships with older males (quite often in their 30s and 40s in the film's, and usually in a position of power). These films have even received awards and praises. There is also underage stage queens, dressed in provocative clothing celebrated by some in the MSM as liberated. Some rushed to Kevin Spacey's defense of sexual acts with a minor male as stating the criticism was homophobic. There is actual activists calling for pedophilia to be legalized and accepted, and they don't receive half the criticism that NAMBLA did in the 1990s. And Netflix did air a documentary several years ago about pedophilia and the filmmaker didn't condemn it but tried to humanize it (his own words).

          2. As a parent of a 9 yo girl, I also will state that the clothing being marketed to 9 yo girls today is something I didn't even see allowed to be worm by 16 and 17 yo girls when I went to high school in the 1980s.

            1. Much of it looks like costumes left over from Britney Spear's early videos. Or a Miley Cyrus concert costume.

              1. i have young daughters as well. with halloween coming up, i was actually a little shocked when we first started to take the kids out trick or treating. there were more than a couple young teenage girls dressed as strippers and prostitutes (their description not mine). regardless of how you feel about the legalities of sex workers etc, this crosses the line, in my opinion and so does "cuties".

                1. I wanted to watch The Boyz with my 16 yo son, but then I read descriptions of some of the sex scenes. Not that they are terrible but I realized I couldn't be comfortable watching them with him. I don't think it's something he can't watch but I thought it'd be weird for us to watch together.
                  I am sure my dad knew I was sneaking into the shop and looking at his old playboys when I was my son's age, but it definitely wasn't anything he mentioned or that we did together.

                  1. That’s a pretty good show. If you have the time and inclination I’d recommend watching without him.

                    1. I am just not with my son

            2. @soldiermedic76

              I agree with you about the state of modern clothing, but question your explanation of how it got to be that way. I think a more logical explanation for why clothing for girls has gotten more risque is that girls of that age want to look mature and grown up, because they associate that with status. The way they do that is by trying to copy adults and older children. This includes wearing clothing that looks "adult" to them, and nothing looks more "adult" to a child than sexualized clothing. Parents have gotten wimpier and worse at saying no to their kids over the years, so companies feel more free to market the kind of clothes kids want instead of the kinds of clothes their parents would rather they wear.

              You have to remember who it is that drives demand for children's clothing: children and parents. People, including children, generally do not wear clothing to impress strangers, they wear it to impress their peer group. Even in a world where pedophilia really was normalized, it would not affect the clothing choice of the average 9 yo girl because she buys clothes to impress the other 9 yo girls she is friends with, not some random grown-up pervert she does not know.

              I am not familiar with the movies you mentioned, but I have never seen any portrayal of child beauty pageant that has not treated the entire idea as creepy. Admittedly it is not a subject matter I have ever cared to research in depth.

              1. I'm sure printing brand names like "Juicy" on the ass of sweatpants for 8 year old girls was totes the children's idea

          3. I notice exactly the same thing.

            However, both trends are still under way. This is just one example of how society makes sex good-bad (as Alan Watts, quoting someone else I forgot, said). We continue to both sexualize children and evince horror at it! Mere child nudity is, as a result, given a sexual tinge it didn't have before, both by those condemning it and those promoting it.

        5. At some point between the 90s-00s, the definition of homophobia changed from "closeted rednecks preying on innocent mild-mannered gay people" to "declining to cater someone's wedding to their gay dog"

          Possibly because the first definition only exists in Hollywood screenplays. They had to change it by necessity.
          It was only a matter of time until pedophiles got so brazen.

          1. What was the name of the day kid killed in Wyoming? The popular narrative was he was targeted for being gay, and is still the accepted narrative but investigation proved it was about a drug deal gone wrong.

            1. Or at least part of the motive was a drug deal gone bad.

              1. Matthew Shepherd. And it was a drug deal gone bad. His killer tried to claim it was an accidental death because Shepherd made a pass at him. But his (the murderer) girlfriend, who had testified it was brought about by anti-gay sentiment later recanted her testimony and admitted the killer was a drug dealer and even a sexual partner of Shepherd's and the motive was due to a drug deal and robbery. This was the prosecutor's case as well. The media ignored the evidence and focused on the girlfriend's testimony, which was conceived as some hair brained defense to avoid murder charges and get it reduced to manslaughter.

        6. They were absolutely right. It never ends with progressives. Give them what they want and they push for more. They can’t help it. This is why compromising with them is a waste of time. It only benefits them.

          Maybe people here will start paying more attention to what I say about the progs. I’ve been warning people here for years, and everything I’ve ever said is being proven correct, and in a big way.

          The only way this ends is to get rid of them. They will never stop otherwise. People need to wake the fuck up, and soon.

    2. It could be that they're going full libertarian and dying on the freedom of expression hill. It's just curious that lately Reason has only gone full libertarian when libertarian overlaps with leftist.

      1. Young Reason writers don't want to be disqualified from future jobs at mainstream (i.e. leftist) rags so they try to thread the needle by writing nominally libertarian stuff that's still meets woke checkboxes.

    3. How do you define pedophilia? At what age have people the ability to make rational decisions? To what extent do local current customs affect the description? Intrinsically what are the problems with incest?

  3. So you see ten year old girls twerking with each other and grabbing their crotches in a movie and your problem with that is that Ted Cruz thinks it is illegal and has a more expansive view of the definition of child porn under federal law than you think is proper.

    Is that your final answer Sullumn? You really think that is the story here?

    Yeah, the issue here is whether it is technically illegal not that 10 year old girls are putting on a sex show on one of the mainline streaming services. Ted Cruz is what to be offended about.

    Fuck you Sullumn. WTF is wrong with you? Really, what is wrong with you?

    1. No doubt Sullum wrote this column with his pants around his ankles.

    2. And how you have degenerated into a bitter insulting humorless pedant!

      1. I am humorless? Just exactly what do you find funny about ten year old girls grabbing their crotches and twerking with each other. Please enlighten me to all of the humor I am missing her.

        Yeah, I find sexualizing and making soft core porn with ten year old girls awful and it makes me angry. I guess you are okay with it. You think it is funny. I always figured you were a desegerate piece of shit, but thanks for confirming it for us. Should we just call you Palin's Buttplug from now on?

        1. To me naked children in a movie isn't per se bad, in fact it's cute and fun because we allow children what we don't allow of adults, since there's no sexual implication there. But having children do what appear to be acts of sexual display, that's what's awful, regardless of how the children are dressed. And it's not the fact of having an audience, but the fact of having children do that at someone's direction, that's the depressing part.

    3. You should be screaming about why American Beauty needs to be banned. After all, that technically has child nudity. Thora Birch was 17.

      Game of Thrones is gone too. They showed naked toddlers outside Littlefingers brothel in S1.

      1. Not entirely. But I also found those questionable choices.

      2. 10 is the new 17!

        1. Leftists really going all in on the "softcore child porn is ok" hand.
          Bold move.
          Let's see how it plays out.

  4. I've seen some very astute people who have given reasons why this film could be considered child pornography. And just because Cruz didn't mention it in his tweet doesn't mean his conclusion if not fact based. And referring it to the DoJ to investigate if it is and if children were sexually exploited doesn't seem like the end of the world or liberty.

    1. It isn't if you think making child porn is wrong. But Sullumn seems to not see it as a problem.

      1. Everyone has different definitions of everything. This film does not fit the legal definition of child porn. That it fits your definition is not the purpose of TFA.

        The world does not revolve around you.

        1. Actually reading Sollum's linked citations it actually can meet the legal definition, arguably.

          1. Also federal statutes has more restrictions on actors 12 and under as they do for ages 13 to 18. The actresses in this film were 11.

            1. Don't bother him with facts. Fashion has told him this is totally illegal and only someone humorless and bitter would think otherwise. He has virtue signal how hip and cool he is.

              These people are garbage. No moral compass or belief. Just mouth whatever is fashionable.

          2. This may be shocking... but ABC is wrong a lot.

        2. Yes it does you piece of shit. The girls are below the age of 12. Sulumn is applying the standard used for adolescent not girls who are ten. Read Mad casual below.

          Do you ever get tired of being a stupid fuck who will believe anything as long as the media or reason tells you to believe it?

          Are you not stupid but just a degenerate piece of shit who likes little girls and wants to believe it is legal to do so?

        3. Everyone has different definitions of everything.

          TFW when a libertarian uses moral relativism to cover for pedophilia.

  5. Let's put aside the question of whether it's child pornography. If we believe that pornography involves actual sex acts, then no, it obviously isn't.

    The big question here is: is it okay to sexualize children in order to tell a story about how sexualizing children is wrong? Putting aside the fact that few of the early reviews mention that this is the moral of the story, the answer is no. Children cannot consent to being used for sexual choreography for the same reason they cannot consent to sexual intercourse. It's wrong to sexualize children for any reason, even if the aim is to make the point that sexualizing children is wrong.

    There are plenty of examples of movies that use excess to make the audience feel complicit in the sleaziness of hedonism: The Wolf of Wall Street, Spring Breakers, The Great Beauty, and even Project X all manage to do this. None of those movies involve underage actors.

    1. Saying this is to show how bad it is to sexually exploit children is like making a movie about the horrors of torturing puppies and actually torturing puppies to make it. That justification makes no sense. They exploited these girls to make the movie.

      1. I don't like that analogy, since they could argue that the girls didn't actually engage in any sex acts (just, uh, suggestive dancing). A more apt comparison would be to a film production that was meant to warn kids against drug use while featuring actual drugs on set.

        1. New Netflix Movie Actually Murders Puppies To Teach That Murdering Puppies Is Bad

          1. The Babylon Bee is murderous (in a good way).

        2. If Sulumn and the rest of these people are so sure this is legal, why don't they get some girls and make a similar film themselves and start shopping it around the dark web. If it is not child porn, they have nothing to worry about right?

        3. I dunno.
          The one clip I saw they were humping the stage...

          1. I saw a clip with them lying on their backs on the stage, legs spread, rubbing their arm up their crotch.

              1. If that's the only thing you all got out of the film then you're all a bunch of sick fucks!

                1. I didn’t watch the film pedo. I saw a couple clips on the news.

                  1. Oh ok, as long as it was just a couple of clips. You're a saint, you sick fuck!

                    1. You can't promote softcore child porn then call other people sick.
                      Get executed

                    2. That’s Buttplug, right?

      2. I Start Business Online with USA Countries.Please Click this link………………3easypay.

    2. It isn't like these types of movies haven't been made in the past, but they generally used of age girls who appeared under age to make them. I wonder why the producer and director didn't consider that route?

      1. And it isn't like everyone doesn't agree that exploiting ten year old girls is bad. Or at least I thought they did. So, why is there a need to make a movie that says that.

        1. Less a matter of a "need" than of an "excuse", I suspect.

      2. Because somebody already made Spring Breakers, which is a masterpiece.

        1. Or Lolita.

          1. Which went to massive lengths to show it wasn't the underage actress engaging in the questionable "not quite child porn" activity.

            1. Yes. They recognized the line.

            2. I know that some of Brooke Shields early movies came very close if not crossing the line. She even states as much. And one of Bo Derek's movies showed a bathing an underage girl in an erotic setting. I believe it was also questioned if it crossed the line. The movie was Bolero. I just googled it because I couldn't remember the title and ironically Google warned me that viewing underage nudity is against federal law.

              1. My google search was underage nudity in Bo Derek movie.

              2. THANKS GOOGLE!

        2. The only two great movies of the 21st century are Mad Max: Fury Road and Spring Breakers.

          1. Uhhm. Depends on when you classify when the 21st century started. If we go with the correct definition (2001) Blackhawk Down was released in 2001. If we go with the less correct but more popular 2000, The Patriot was released in 2000.

            1. We were school clothes shopping at a big box stores (won't mention it's name but it claims to be family oriented and refuses to sell what it classifies as pornography and was founded in Arkansas) and my daughter needed new underwear. I was aghast that underwear marketed for 9 and 10 yo included thongs, g-strings etc.

              1. I know how Bill felt in this price now:
                BTW, we didn't buy them for her, despite her asking. Probably wants them because she helps folds mommies clothes sometines

              2. Posted to the wrong thread. Fucking squirrels.

            2. "The Patriot was released in 2000."

              I do love Braveheart 2: The Revenge.
              But it's sad when Heath Ledger dies

              1. Lol. I cried more when they killed Lisa Brenner's character.

          2. Bro, there are a ton of great movies that came out this century. In no particular order: Mulholland Drive, In the Mood for Love, There Will Be Blood, Yi Yi, Lost in Translation, Under the Skin, The Social Network, Boyhood, Moonlight, Phoenix, The Tree of Life, Holy Motors, Uncle Boonmee. I could go on.

            1. Zoolander
              Undercover Brother
              The Other Guys
              Gladiator (?)
              Deadpool 2

            2. Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz (I love Simon Pegg's works and love his character in The Boyz) both Zombielands.

    3. Sonny Bunch, the token conservative of American film criticism, was defending this movie on Twitter recently. Dude's a spineless imbecile who's taste in movies sucks. What's the point of having a right-wing film critic if he won't express unpopular opinions at times like these? (His whole argument was that you can't judge a movie you haven't seen, which only works if the film in question isn't of dubious morality.)

    4. Milo and Otis was a great animal rights movie

    5. So the Babylon Bee did an amusing piece today about making a film where they murder puppies to bring attention to the issue of puppy murder.

      That's how I feel about the "they're just bringing attention to the issue" argument. There are many ways to do that that doesn't involve actually sexualizing the child actors involved. That feels like an after-the-fact rationalization, now that people have rightfully criticized them for being what they pretend to oppose.

    6. I was under the impression that this movie was a documentary about how children are sexualized because of the social pressures they face to become sexual too early, and how this is bad. It seems clear that the filmmakers intend to evoke horror and disgust from the audience through their portrayal of the dance routine, not sexual arousal. How are the characters being sexualized if the emotion that is intended to be evoked is horror, not arousal?

      If a documentary film crew somehow got permission from an evil warlord to follow a bunch of child soldiers around and film them killing people, no one would accuse them of harming children. I feel like this is analogous.

      1. They auditioned girls, who weren't doing these acts created a fictionalized story, and coached them and choreographied their dance moves. It was often scripted. Maybe that is the modern definition of documentary. Seems staged to me.

      2. Also both IFMB and Wikipedia classifies the movie as drama and or comedy-drama. And none of the press releases before the controversy was reported mentions the film meant as a criticism of sexualizing young girls. They all described it as a coming of age story about a repressed girl discovering her femininity.

      3. It’s not a documentary. The filmmakers didn’t go to some 11 year old dance recitals. They created it all themselves, and told these children, and hundreds of others that auditioned, to do these things.

      4. "How are the characters being sexualized if the emotion that is intended to be evoked is horror, not arousal?"

        Because it apparently wasn't intended, but is being used as a post hoc rationalization now that sexualizing little girls is being called out.
        Maybe sit the next few plays out, champ

  6. BTW, I lost big time.

    Here were my predictions re: who would write Reason's Cuties article:

    1. ENB
    2. Robby
    3. Suderman
    4. Gillespie
    5. KMW

    Sullum didn't even crack the top five!

    1. ENB was the clear favorite. But Sullum was my second choice. Sollumn absolutely has the kind of dishonesty and sheer immorality to do it.

      1. Don't know much about Sullum. Thought he was one of the cool ones, along with Doherty and Walker.

        1. Sollum has decided since 2016 that if it a Republican not named Amash (and sometimes Paul) that everything the Republicans do is authoritarian and unconstitutional.

    2. Gillespie has a tweet gaslighting people concerned about the movie, so I’m assuming most of the crew is for it.

      1. He can put his "not Real child porn" tweet right up next to his "not Real communism" one...

    3. Imagine if Shikha wrote this article

  7. Reason defenders of pimps, hos, strippers, druggies, rioters, looters, and now pedophiles.

    1. I have no problem with legalizing sex work for consenting adults. And even relooking at age of consent laws for older post pubescent teens (i.e. so called Romeo and Juliet laws, despite the fact that Romeo and Juliet were actually both in their mid teens in the play). But pedophilia is just wrong, period.

  8. The Film Hollywood Doesn't Want You To See. Hollywood pedophiles & convicted sex offenders

    1. That's an interesting account. It's managed by one of the film's producers, who is also a conspiracy theorist and MAGA person. He had a falling out with the film's director and ended up putting together the final cut of the movie. Apparently, he's a total sleaze.

      1. *falling-out

  9. Prepubescent Twerking Does Not Make Cuties Illegal

    Uh... actually Jacob, you're wrong. See actual depictions of adults or near adults as minors or artistic representations of minors must be obscene in order to be considered child pornography. However, for actual children under 12, the depictions need not be obscene (NYC v. Ferber '82).

    Minors below the age of 12 don't have to actually be nude or engage in sexual activity in order for something to be engaged in child pornography and, honestly, you're being selectively retarded in favor of child porn. If a director has two 12 yr. olds in thongs make out topless (without showing their chest) on camera are you going to jump in and say it's not child pornography because no actual depictions of sex occurred? What a dumbass.

    1. This article is proof that Sulumn at least will literally defend anything if doing so is required by the current media talking points. They exploited the shit out of little girls and Sulumn will go to bat for him because that is what he is told to do. Pathetic.

      1. Something like 600 little girls auditioned.
        Auditions which involved doing exactly what they do in the movie.
        Fn sick

        1. yeah, lets not forget how horrible the parents are for allowing their girls to do it

          1. Yes!!!

          2. We’re gonna need a lot more woodchippers.

            1. Between these parents and the zombie antifaBLM horde, we're gonna be busy

    2. Technically, it's probably coaching the prepubescent twerking that made it illegal. If they'd been caught on film doing it spontaneously they'd have been on safer legal ground.

      1. I would surmise that a competent lawyer or judge could also come up with a 'totality of circs' type of argument.

        I've heard that there's a scene where a girl takes a picture of her genitals and posts it online and then one or more girls encourages a boy to do the same. I fail to see how that doesn't constitute sexual activity in the large. Especially with all the legal 'affirmative consent' and 'sexting' bullshit. Moreover, and to your point, I don't see how you coach pre-teens to act out that behavior without explicitly making one pre-teen tell another to take a picture of their genitals.

      2. I’ve heard that there’s a scene where a girl takes a picture of her genitals and posts it online and then one or more girls encourages a boy to do the same.

        Of course, if this goes in front of Roberts, we couldn't count on him to invent a reverse equality penaltax interpretation of the Constitution because he's an originalist with principles.

        Could you imagine if the sex/gender roles had been reversed on this part of the movie? They'd probably murder someone.

      3. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lotHere………………………Click here.

    3. Uh… actually Jacob, you’re wrong. See actual depictions of adults or near adults as minors or artistic representations of minors must be obscene in order to be considered child pornography. However, for actual children under 12, the depictions need not be obscene (NYC v. Ferber ’82).

      I guess this was how Luc Besson got around the really creepy Lolita vibe that permeates The Professional. Natalie Portman was 13 when the movie was made.

      1. I don't think Luc Besson was trying to encourage minors to shack up with professional hitmen or as an introspective into the lives of minors shacking up with hitmen the way the current film is trying to do a deep dive into the lives of hyper-sexualized pre-teens.

        1. That's just being pedantic. It's not as pronounced in the initial US release, but there's some skin-crawling scenes in the Director's Cut that weren't all that subtle about it.

          I haven't watched that film since I saw the Director's Cut, and even with Portman's shitlib politics, I've always felt bad about how her image as a Loli fap fantasy was exploited all the way until she finally came of age. Same shit happened in Beautiful Girls, and the initial press kits for The Phantom Menace described her character as "sensual," when she was still 16 years old.

          1. I didn't mean to say it wasn't creepy. Just that I could see how it wasn't as explicitly creepy for the sake of creepy, targeted at creepiness, and/or encouraging/normalizing creepiness the way Cuties appears to be.

            Honestly, at this point, I can't remember all the details of the movie or if the cut I saw was general release or director's cut. I do recall that the love was unrequited and the plot/story context was even admonishing or foreboding in that regard. Still agreed wrt Portman.

            I will say, Netflix also made The Babysitter, with a ~12 yr. old boy character who falls in love with an auspiciously 18-yr.-old babysitter and there are parts of that movie where they're staring into each others' eyes and subsequently, she is effectively informing the kid and (and a girl who's interested in him by proxy) about (e.g.) prostitution, orgies, etc. Without ruining too much at separate points in the movie they both profess their love for one another and the whole affair doesn't exactly get scrubbed squeaky clean at the end. Not as 'icky' as Leon or presumably Cuties but for the all the degenerate, unoriginal crap, and self-serving crap that was in the movie, it stuck out as slightly creepy.


    The whole team behind Cuties needs to be investigated. Look what I found. As a director I call tell you it’s not normal to audition 700 little girls with no acting experience. What were they told to do during auditions? They preyed on inexperienced people starstruck by Hollywood.

    1. What have you directed?

      Are you Terrence Malick? I LOVE EVERYTHING YOU'VE MADE.

    2. ::Roman Polanski has entered the chat::

  11. ick, dude no.

  12. Sonny Bunch, the token conservative of American film criticism, was defending this movie on Twitter recently. Dude’s a spineless imbecile who’s taste in movies sucks. What’s the point of having a right-wing film critic if he won’t express unpopular opinions at times like these? (His whole argument was that you can’t judge a movie you haven’t seen, which only works if the film in question isn’t of dubious morality.)

    1. which only works if the film in question isn’t of dubious morality

      Disagree. Regardless of morality, there's still a whole host of reasons why it doesn't work. As evidence, I submit the sentence "Adam Sandler plays his own twin sister."

    2. *whose

  13. Contrary to What Ted Cruz Thinks, Prepubescent Twerking Does Not Make Cuties Illegal

    But it does make anyone who watched it a pervert.

    1. this this this. and please, feel free to be a pervert ... but own it. ick.

  14. And this is why the Left and the Right are killing free speech and liberty in America! Was there any actual sexual intercourse? No! Move on people!

    1. Yes sexually exploiting minors is fine as long as we don't have sex with them. Good call wearenotperfect.

    2. So molestation that doesn't include actual interclourse would be fine with you?

      1. JesseAz, the one that possess the moral compass to know where to draw the line. Next thing you know Jes will be against kids having an ice cream cone or popsicle because he may be offended! Go suck a big one you incompetent fuck!

        1. Gee strawman much? You get called out for your take and your defense is to strawman?

          1. Dude just compared non-intercourse molestation to eating an ice cream cone.

            Either the words are too big for him, or he’s one sick fuck.

            1. The fact that many of you are even entertaining the notion of something that the film was clearly not about makes me think that maybe you all are the sick fucks!

              1. Okey donkey pedo.

                1. I was gonna follow with “dokey” because my phone changed it to donkey, but I’ll leave it with donkey because you’re probably into bestiality too.

        2. Hopefully you get shot in the dick one day like Rosenbaum.

    3. I’m shocked that you’re the commentator that showed up with this take. Hahaha!

  15. Am I the only one that finds it strange that this film was released in January but the outrage is happening in September?

    1. The outrage has been there for awhile, but the media has decided to focus on the outrage and also Netflix decided to stream it. Also it wasn't officially released until August in France and September internationally. If was only a private screening in January.

      1. Okay, that makes more sense. This year has been full of media-manufactured crises and outrage (more than ever before), and this whole story just gives me that sort of vibe.

        1. The media has turned this into another right wing overreaction narrative, whereas even a number of Libertarians and leftist have also voiced discomfort with the film and even questioned it's legality.

          1. Is that true? I need to see some sources.

    2. The outrage is happening now because it just moved from being an obscure film in France, where everybody assumes skeevy things are going on, to being promoted on Netflix.

    3. It was released to a limited/selected audience at Sundance in Jan. It was released to the general public in Europe in late Aug. and in the US less than a week ago. Dumbass.

  16. do wanna know about this post every one says and i ask..READ MORE

    1. Like I mentioned this morning, it's more of a surprise if someone in Hollywood *isn't* molesting little kids.

  17. Seems like one of those things where even if he ends up being *technically* correct (the best kind of correct) in his argument that it's not illegal...does that feel good to win on that one? Is this a hill worth dying on for "freedom". Is this an actual freedom worth having?

    Kind of feels like arguing that it's fine if he were to jerk off on a sheep while it licks peanut butter off his balls, because hey, its not illegal!

    1. And it is highly dubious he is even technically correct. The courts have a different definition of simulated sex when it applies to minors as opposed to of age actors and actresses.

      1. Reading his citations, the cases don't exactly support his (Sollums) argument.

        1. In fact one of the citations specifically mentions focusing on the public region can be considered to be a violation of rules on allowable simulated sexual intercourse when it applies to minors.

          1. I saw the preview for the thing and my gut feeling is it wouldn't get shot down as straight up illegal, but as someone with young kids, it's just in pretty bad taste. I'm not "offended" or falling on the fainting couch, or writing a letter to the editor...but just kinda...blegch, gross.

            Just seems like such an odd thing to champion.

            1. They citations that Sollums linked to could be used to argue that the filming, the coaching required etc does rise to the level of child pornography under current jurisprudence. Sollum's take is not as solid as he protests. Further, the letter he links to, Cruz does provide specific scenes and references the federal statutes he feels they violate. I wouldn't call that tactless. Maybe Cruz is wrong but he does provide facts as to his conclusions in the very letter Sollum links to.

          2. And, as I mention above, there's a history of courts ruling against free speech in pornography cases for reasons other than the explicit (or not) content. If a judge looks at it and says it lacks artistic, public merit, that its primary purpose is to encourage the production of child porn, if it's primary audience is consumers of child pornography it can be ruled as not being protected free speech.

            You couldn't make an ad soliciting minors to post pictures of their genitals to your website even if you didn't actually employ any minors or depictions of sex in the making of the ad.

          3. Shocked face.

  18. The film is not illegal. That doesn't mean it ain't tasteless.

    Nothing you can do about the perpetually tasteless French, but Netflix should be shamed for airing this.

  19. On the bright side it looks like metoo is over

  20. This is nuts. Ted Cruz hasn't shown how this is illegal child pornography and therefore he's barred from asking it to be investigated? And whether or not it's illegal, it's certainly distasteful and defending it certainly feeds into the idea that libertarians are libertines. We're still allowed to have standards, you know.

    1. He didn't reference it in his tweet, Sollum doesn't say if he references it in his request to the DoJ.

      1. BTW the letter Sollum links to does reference the specific codes Cruz thinks make the film illegal.

  21. Sullum is buttplug?

    1. It all makes sense now.

  22. an 11-year-old's participation in a risqué dance troupe that flouts the values of her conservative Muslim family

    In the sequel, the 11-year old grows up to be an Islamist Congresswoman from Minnesota.

    1. And the sequel involves incest. The next normalized perversion.

      1. Remember the 10-years old drag queen stripping in bars a few years ago? This is step 2.

        1. I referenced that in another couple of comments.

    2. That's the one for American audiences.

      The one for European audiences (further) normalizes the rape of minors and honor killings.

  23. What Ted Cruz thinks and why, at this point, is so important.

    I mean that in all seriousness.

    Californians will send Democrats to Sacramento because of what people like Ted Cruz says and why.

    I've seen them elect Democrats that drowned them in taxes and overspending because of what Republicans elsewhere in the country said about gay marriage and "legitimate rape".

    1. I can't help but wonder how they think ridiculing the outrage about this movie is going to help Biden with suburban moms in swing states, though? I mean can anyone see the actual soccer Karens being okay with this movie?

      1. I mean can anyone see the actual soccer Karens being okay with this movie?

        Not entirely convinced that crazy stops to consider the electoral optics before handing someone its beer.

        Also, while agreed that the average American soccer mom won't be persuaded by this movie, that doesn't mean they won't get or feel shamed by proper Karens who are showing having showings and in-depth discussions about this with their daughters... of either gender.

        1. True the soccer Karens did invent everyone gets a trophy and soccer where we don't keep score and seem okay with their children transitioning. Some even promote it.

  24. OK, I am totally down that Roy Moore is a seriously creepy dude.

    But, I am going to go out on a really dangerous limb here and point out the fact that the girls that ol’ Roy perved over were in fact completely sexually mature females. It is not that many years since fourteen year olds could marry in Alabama.

    Some years ago, the world was scandalized that Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen year old cousin. What was legal (and fairly common) in Mississippi was utterly scandalous in England

    There really is a difference between feeling sexual attraction for a prepubescent girl and feeling sexual attraction for a sexually mature teenage female.

    Juliet was fourteen years old. Quite frankly, most of us do not not have to go back very far in our family tree to find a grandXsomething-mother who was a teenager.

    That said, just ’cause Ted Cruz is wrong about the legality here he is certainly right that this is disgusting. I recall back when the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” happened posting here that I found it disturbing that for some reason suburban mothers were somehow more disturbed by their boys seeing a bare breast than they were about the 15-20 minutes of simulated sex onstage that had preceded it.

    1. Trump, Ted Cruz and the Republicans just got the Democrats and their media allies to look like they're covering for pedophilia, just a month and a half before the election.

      Sullum is too fucking stupid to realize this.

      1. They wouldn't look like they were covering for pedophilia if they weren't covering for pedophilia

      2. Republicans and Tulsi Gabbard.
        I don't like a lot of Tulsi's policy positions outside of foreign affairs, but temperamentally she seems good.

  25. In regards to Freedom of Speech/Expression and Cancel Culture, there's truly needs to be a deep discussion on what Lines should be Drawn, and the Controversy around the Cuties movie is a reminder of that.

    Something to note, Teen Twerking Competitions are a Real Things, and I didn't know about that until someone on Twitter pointed it out when talking about the Cuties movie. So if the Real Thing is Legal, then definitely a Movie about it is Legal. Real Life Teen Twerking Competitions is someone we Need to Address.

    1. Hell, they are okay with adolescent boys doing drag queen routines in sexualized costumes at actual strip clubs. They, many in the media, LGBTQ activists and even his parents, even talked about how empowered it made the adolescent boy feel.

    2. Except the movie isn't about teens, it's about, and stars, 10 and 11 year olds

      1. It really shouldn’t be that complicated, but here we are.

  26. Netflix has on its LGBTQ category a romantic movie about a underage male who falls in love with an adult male. They also several years ago showed a documentary about pedophilia a that tried to humanize them, by the filmmakers own words (filmed in England I believe).

    1. This isn't Netflix's first foray into this. They've also broadcast the movie Borelo which features underage nudity, actual underage nudity. And some of Brooke Shields early works, some of which depicted sex and underage nudity. Films that Ms. Shields has criticized her mother for letting her make and Hollywood for making.

      1. She also still says she doesn't regret making the movie. She is a little all over the board on it and does criticize the sexualizing of teen models and has stated her kids won't be allowed to act until their adults.

      2. Pretty Baby is straight up under age soft porn. It is much worse than anything in Bolero.

        1. Yes it was. And guess who else was in it? Surprise Susan Sarandohn.

  27. I haven't seen the movie and have no interest in doing so but a similar rule to Taranto's on dog whistles would seem to apply.
    "If you can hear the dog whistle you're the dog"

    Only it's:

    " If you know pedophiles would love to jerk off to this... (movie child beauty pageant, tween/teen dance/gymnasics team etc). How is it that you know?."

    1. I don't think you have to be a pedophile to be state a movie depicting 10 and 11 yo twerking and simulating masturbation in revealing outfits is gross and quite possibly illegal.

    2. Do I have to be gay to know that gay men would jerk off to a Patrick Stewart nude spread (I am told Stewart has a huge following among gay men)? Why do you have to be of a particular predilection to know that something is made to appeal to that predilection?. That makes no sense.

      1. The dog whistle comment was made about statements that aren't on their surface considered racists by most people except those labeling them racist the analogy SIV tries to make is completely false. No one denies that using the N word is racist if done by a white person (it's dubious when done by people of color). No one denies the Song of the South had a number of racist depictions. One doesn't need to be racist to feel uncomfortable with the depictions in that movie.
        You don't have to be a pedophile to be upset when you see a 9 yo girl in a microbinki or wearing daisy dukes with her ass cheeks hanging out and her g string panties above the low waistline. Those are obviously adult clothing (and even then of questionable taste in most settings). So again his analogy is weak at best.

      2. When I think "Patrick Stewart nude" my next thought is "needs ironing." But who am I to say what others might find appealing?

        1. The heart wants what it wants I guess. Don't ask me.

      3. So John, you have evidence that this film was intended for pedophiles? If you do, it's your responsibility to provide that evidence to Ted Cruz.

        1. This is dumb pedo.

    3. Watch a couple clips. We don't need to be a pedophile to know a pedophile would get off on watching a 6 year old get raped. Under the same token, we don't need to be a pedophile to know a pedophile would get off on pre-pubescents mimicking sex acts.

      By the way, this isn't subtle shit either. This isn't a little girl awkwardly mimicking acts adult women do to sexually arouse without the full understanding of what's going on. Real little girls don't dance and behave the way the girls in this movie do unless they are being groomed to do so.

      1. I am amazed that anyone has a problem with condemning this and thinking Netflix is complete scum for streaming it. If you can't condemn a movie that shows ten year old girls mimicking sex acts with out some bullshit "yeah but..", what the fuck is wrong with you?

        1. This is why I could never be a full-blown "libertarian" if THIS is what the philosophy leads to.

          Kids need protection. Period. Even if it is from their attention whoring parents.

          These are 11 year old girls. What the fuck is wrong with you, "libertarians"?

          1. But there are nazi's under every bed according to the LP these days...communists..just misunderstood..pedos..defended...hell I"m sure the recent CA law change to not remove a mandatory felony for a 21 year old man to abuse a 11 year old boy ("as long as it was consensual") is defended by Sollum..libertarians need to expunge these wack jobs from the party.

          2. Yeah, I’m where you are; I voted (reluctantly) in 2016, for Gary Johnson, after his “Bake the damn cake”bullshit. Now, Jo Jorgensen is pandering to the SJWs over Black Lives Matters, while actual cities, like Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles have been set on fire, looted, people have been assaulted, even MURDERED (David Dorn in Philly, the Patriot Prayers guy in Portland). How GOOD can those cosmotarian cocktail parties be?

      2. Real little girls with the internet don't need anyone to groom them to see inappropriate shit and mimic it. That's what kids do. Mimic shit celebrities do with little to no idea of why they shouldn't.

        1. The difference is that they aren't doing it to make an adult happy or for the entertainment of adults. I have strict limits on what my kids can see on the internet and monitor their web usage because that is my responsibility as an adult. It is also my responsibility to explain why something isn't appropriate. This is entirely different than me taking my daughter to audition for a movie where she would be coached to simulate age inappropriate behavior.

        2. They'll mimic one act, awkwardly, then laugh and tease each other about it. They don't develop the whole sex kitten behavior and dance routine on their own. It takes an adult to a concerted effort to get a child to act this way. Real children are awkward, hyperactive, and prone to screwing around if given a moment alone. She was really a sex kitten and would have done that without an adult's encouragement is something pedeophiles tell themselves and other to justify taking advantage of a child.

          Seriously, watch some clips from the movies. The director fucked up. She forgot how real pre-pubescents mimic adults (not very well) and pushed her own sexual expression onto an age group that wasn't ready for it. And if you don't believe me that this behavior isn't natural for girls that age, well look at how many little girls she had to interview to find ones that would to her satisfaction. 4 out of 700 means 99.5% of girls didn't even show potential for meeting that standard of behavior even with extensive coaching (she didn't find her 'star' until the last day of auditions).

          1. Heck, in the 1980s WNYC-TV (then owned by the City of NY) ran a 1-time program called Images of Children or possibly Images of Childhood that consisted of 2 short subjects and 1 medium length in the middle. One short was just a home movie of a trip to the zoo, like any of us would have but with a piano track, and another was a cartoon with a child's voice-over, both basically unremarkable pieces of shit. The piece in the middle was a documentary about some anti-war activist who was dying of cancer and their friends and family, and it included a gratuitous bit in the middle with a young boy and girl hanging naked from some horizontal bar and saying, let's do the penis and vagina dance, and proceeded to do splits facing the camera. No way that was their idea to do then and there. The whole production was funded by one of the National Endowments.

            Children are adorable, and they can be very cute when naked and playing innocently. But someone's making a sexual display of them turns my joy to sadness, which is only added to by the object of it seeming to be the fun of leftists rubbing it in the face of The Man using his money. I'm like, "Oh, a compilation about children....Feh, an indulgence of leftist propaganda with a token appearance by kids? Well, maybe something in this isn't so boring. Aw, cute kids. Aw, look, playing on their own naked, sooo cute. Aw, fuck, someone's having them do crotch shots.... Damn, the National Endowment for the (Arts/Humanities/both). And over the Municipal Broadcasting Service."

    4. Pretty much.

      But it is good to see the libertarian contingent rush in to get big daddy government involved over something "icky" and apparently lacking in actual harm (at least moreso than would be apparent to the actual parents of the girls...).

      And the same rational is used to justify any number of laws and broad overreach from CCP, but as long as it serves my own rectitude, it's okay.

      1. Not rushing in to defend anything but definitely questioning the sexualization of someone to young to consent. Another person defending this take by using straw man arguments of what people are actually posting.

        1. I’ve seen some very astute people who have given reasons why this film could be considered child pornography. And just because Cruz didn’t mention it in his tweet doesn’t mean his conclusion if not fact based. And referring it to the DoJ to investigate if it is and if children were sexually exploited doesn’t seem like the end of the world or liberty.

          Which part was straw-manned?

          But certainly for a film produced in France with French girls, the DoJ has an moral imperative to investigate to see in any exploitation has occurred.

          1. If it is being shown on America by American companies, yes they do. Child pornography made in other countries is still child pornography and illegal to distribute in the US. And my take realizes that law enforcement does have a valid libertarian reason to protect children against sexual exploitation. And it is a strawman because of your hyperbolic representation of what people are stating, especially your analogy to the CCP. Here is a hint of you have to use hyperbole to describe people's arguments you are relying on straw man arguments.
            Further my argument accurately states many people with legal training disagree with Sollum's conclusions that this doesn't meet the legal requirements of child pornography. Especially as Sollum's citations also support Cruz's argument and the letter Sollum links to does provide the actual federal statutes Cruz believes have been violated. Also, the citations Sollum links to are in regards to actors 13 to 18 and different rules apply to children under 12, and the court cases he uses as evidence also suffer the same weakness.

          2. Are you stating that if someone collects and distributes nude pictures of girls taken in France in the US, that US laws doesn't apply? I am pretty sure that isn't what you meant but it is applicable to your defense of this film by referencing it's french origins.

      2. Also it should be noted that the film makers originally described and promoted this as a coming of age story of a young girl discovering her femininity by joining a dance troupe. It was only after the controversy that they added the description of it as a criticism of sexualizing young girls. One of the funders of the movie has also been accused of sexual misconduct with underage girls in real life.

      3. There’s a spectrum of libertarian thought, right? I’m pretty sure minarchism still exists, so, if there’s harm or exploitation happening to kids, I’ll sleep like a baby, knowing that the sick bastards are facing consequences. Won’t make me feel unlibertarian in the least.

  28. I'm not one to boycott or virtue signal my buying choices....usually I don't give a crap. But this is different. I've been considering canceling Netflix for awhile and this was the last straw. No more Netflix for my household.

    The most bizarre thing is how much they censor other shows they stream, a vaguely un-pc scene on The Office? Gone. But not this? I think it's safe to assume that the upper management is a bunch of perverts...or at least they don't care if they come across that way.

  29. What was the purpose behind this garbage article? This site has been progressively slipping down the drain lately, but this is mind boggling. There was absolutely zero need to defend this nonsense. So how did doing so cross your mind?

    Thank you for outing yourself, though, you pedo shitbag. Permanently noted.

    If your desire is to make supporting this filth the new wave of libertarianism, you’ll be doing the movement a terrible disservice. But perhaps it’s better we all know the truth.

    Yeah, I made an account just to go on the record as calling you a pedophile shitbag. How the hell do you have a job?

    1. This magazine used to piss off both right wing and left wing with true libertarian takes. It started going downhill around the time when a certain businessman and reality star rode and escalator down to give a speech in August of 2015.

  30. Well given both cultures in the movie have been approving of young girls living with adult men (I can't recall the name of the French guy..artist or author who was shacking up with a 14 year old..she recently came out and discussed how she was essentially abused) this movie probably will do very well in France and Senegal.

    But honestly if libertarians have now no morals or traditional values (remember wokes...many traditional values existed to preserve our life, liberty, and property)..its time to stop the party and send the wokes who defend the garbage to Nambla

  31. I have family members abused (both young girls) by their step have to have zero and I mean zero tolerance for any "art" that glorifies this..

  32. I watched the trailer and saw nothing parents from South America or Europe would likely object to. Far worse were the child molesting planks injected by communist infiltrators into 1980s and 90s LP platforms--planks designed to NOT amuse parents of minors, nor earn votes from citizens too young to vote. Current uninspected border crossing planks are no less idiotic and just as alienating to registered voters familiar with the definition of government. South Americans and Europeans. My concern is for a sensible platform.

    1. Yeah, my concern is how Europeans and South Americans feel about my opinions. I lie awake at night, wondering...

  33. First Reason goes full progressive...

    Now the commenters sound like a bunch of Karens on Nextdoor...

    R.I.P, "libertarian moment" .

    1. I have a few questions for you, if you could answer straight without hyperbole and ad hominems
      First do you consider laws that protect minors against sexual exploitation by adults to be not libertarian?
      Second, do you consider it not libertarian to criticize something, even if it is legal (which is dubious despite Sollum's argument) that is not socially acceptable, i.e. depicting young girls being choreographed to perform simulated sexual acts for entertainment of adults?
      Third, how do you explain the fact that the filmmakers and Netflix both originally marketed this not as a criticism of sexualizing children but as a comedy-drama coming of age story of a young girl joining a dance troupe and discovering her femininity and the fact that the current narrative of it being a critical story only came out after the criticism started?
      Fourth, is not one of the hallmarks of libertarianism free market? Isn't it the free market to voice your displeasure with a product?
      Fifth, what is your definition of going full Karen? Is simply criticizing the movie and Sollum's hypothesis going full Karen in your opinion?
      Sixth, where do you draw the line between art and sexually exploiting children? If there is no line do you think people should be allowed to view and market actual child pornography?

      1. And question six is really not meant to be hyperbole or a gotcha question. It is based upon the idea that even the NAP will create conflicts in ideological understanding. That many issues are ambiguous and difficult to avoid conflicting views.

      2. Define "children". Is your definition consistent with historical US and Western cultural norms? Should the age of majority be an arbitrary 18 or 21 or something higher, lower or variable for different people What do you think the AoC should be? Are Euros barbarian perverts for mostly deciding on 15? Should children ever be tried as adults for criminal acts? Should 16 y/os be able to drive cars and younger persons drive farm vehicles and agricultural machinery on public roads. Should a 15 y/o be able to quit school and go to work full time? At what age should someone be able to refuse medical treatment or seek it against the wishes of his parents or guardian? Should emancipated minors have rights more in keeping with adults than their un-emancipated peers? Is a 19 y/o adult engaged to a 16 y/o "child" necessarily exploiting that person? Should media vendors be required to limit purchase/access of music, books, comics and digital entertainment that isn't "approved" for children? Who decides what that is and should penalties for violating it be civil or criminal?

        Don't watch the movie, cancel netflix (I won't and don't have it) Speak out all you like and try to persuade others but there is a huge difference between disapproving of something and wanting it highly restricted or banned under penalty of law. This shit seems uncontroversial in France are we acting like Saudis or the Taliban for wanting to restrict everyone from seeing stuff like this?

        As for the movie and other shit with "sexualized" children would it be less objectionable if the girls were 14? What about 16 or 17?

        What if they were 6-10 but instead of the racy "contemporary dance" they were costumed as 1930s-1950s adult showgirls and performing a period dance number as part of a dance recital or competition?

        I watched a trailer, it seemed tame, parents should certainly be able to try to keep their younger children from seeing it if they want to but good luck in keeping older "children" away from anything if they want to see it. Trying will almost assure they will.

        1. The AoC is definitely worth discussing, but I doubt anyone would agree it is prepubescent girls. And so your example of a 14 to girl is questionable as it applies to this case.
          In your consideration it is take, but others disagree and furthermore they believe that the very fact that some see it as tame is inductive of a problem. Nothing Karen about that. A post pubescent girl or boy is different than a prepubescent kid. Trying to equate the two is a false equivalency.

        2. And the girls were 6 to 10 in this movie.

          1. I thought they were supposed to be 11 or 12. The one thing I don't get about the "sexualizing of children" (who don't actually have sex) and not just in this movie is why would pedos, who presumably are attracted to innocent young children, be attracted to or inspired to molest children dressing and acting like adults? I don't think it works that way and I have to wonder about those who think it does.

            On another note, what do these people think about The Professional? That, to me, is a beautiful heartwarming tear-jerker wholly redeemed by extreme retributive violence.

            1. Pedos also like to dress girls up in provacitive clothes. It doesn't have to make sense. And the sexualizing them does involve fantasies of them being sexual creatures, for most pedophiles. I know this from reading scientific and journalistic literature about pedophiliacs. It is the opposite of people into age roleplay, where adults dress as kids. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean those who think differently are secretly pedophiles. Nor does that make you right. Seeing prepubescent kids as sexual objects is seeing them in an adult role that they are obviously not ready for. This obviously doesn't make sense to most people. Also, if you listen to pedophiles, many defend themselves by stating the prepubescent child is a sexual being and consenting. This is obviously contrary to reality. Therefore it doesn't make any less sense that these people are willing to dress girls in provacitive clothing for their own pleasure. It has nothing to do, for many of them, with viewing the child in an age appropriate manner. In fact they view the child in the least age appropriate manner you could. There is quite a bit of scientific literature on the subject. And quite a bit of journalistic literature on the subject.
              The girls depicted were 10-11, by stating they were 6-10 I meant some actually were in that she group and the rest barely out of it.

        3. “Define “children””

          Well the movie is about, and stars, 10 year olds, so let’s go with that.

        4. Post pubescent girls would certainly be less objectionable than 10 and 11 year olds.
          And there's nothing "Karen" about pointing out that it's fucked up the left is defending and embracing softcore kiddy porn.
          I don't really give a shit if it's investigated or not, though I think there's just cause to do so, but I am absolutely going to make the left own their position and express some discomfort with their apparent desire to sexualize pre pubescent children.
          And I'm a bit amazed at the "libertarian" objection to criticism of these things.

        5. You can engage in the sophistry of debating when the age of consent should actually be. That certainly has not been consistent or universally applied, and definitely provides some gray area for debate.

          However, it is irrelevant to the movie in question as it featured pre-pubescent girls. No healthy minded person belives the age of consent should be 10-11. A normal, healthy human is NOT attracted sexually to pre-pubescent girls. That is literally considered a mental disorder. That is what pedophilia is. If you find you are just as attracted to a prepubescent girl as you are 16-18 year old girls, I would strongly suggest you go and see a psychologist to help you learn coping mechanisms so that you don't act on that particular mental disorder. Otherwise for the rest of us, we see a big difference between the sexualization of late teens and pre-pubescent girls.

  34. Well, those girls are old enough to decide to become boys, so - - - - - - - -

    1. One of the myths I hear a lot is that these girls would be married in medieval days. However, prepubescent marriage, especially among non royalty, were uncommon and even grounds for excommunication by the church. The misconception is because menarche occurs today at 11-13 years of age. However menarche is triggered by hormonal responses to lipid deposits. Menarche won't begin until the body is ready to support reproduction nutritionally. This is true in almost every mammal. In medieval days, due to poorer food security peasant girls would often not experience menarche until their mid to late teens and even in the yoeman class it was generally around 14 and 15. Also, while many arranged marriages in royalty occured when the girls were prepubescent, it was unheard of for their couple to actually live as man and wife until after she reached puberty. In fact many royal marriages the couple would be married for years before even meeting each other.

      1. It should he also noted that the Romans were aghast when they first met the Greeks because of greek pedophilia. The Roman elite would later copy these practices, but even then, it was criticized by a good number of Romans.

      2. Another note, the lack of body fat is why most gymnasts and highly completive female athletes don't experience menarche until after they retire from professionally competing. Girls who deal with chronic illness, bolemics and anorexics also have delayed menarche and also tend to have irregular periods even after they start, until the conditions is controlled.

        1. With all the notes, what's one more? It should also be noted that history includes some pretty fucked up shit that was regarded as normal until we developed the broader economic feasibility to conceptualize alternatives and edify ourselves as to it's horrible nature.

          Incest to perpetuate a tribe or race, eunechs and non-voluntary pre-pubescent castration, prima nocta, human sacrifice, etc. were all practiced intermittently up to the Enlightenment. Just because tigers eat their young to survive doesn't mean humans should do the same or allow themselves to be reduced to such. Especially for no other reason than entertainment.

          1. Agreed although there is real questions if prima nocta ever really happened or if it is a myth like the iron maiden and it's use in the inquisition.

            1. Haven’t you seen Braveheart?

              1. I would hope so, considering he specifically mentioned liking the sequel...

            2. Gilgamesh, the first literary work known to man, begins with conflict because Gilgamesh is running around fucking every woman in the village, and there's nothing his subjects can do about it.
              Don't know how late and/or in what areas the practice lasted, but I have no doubt that the "lord's right" was a thing at the dawn of civilization.
              It is, after all, entirely logical.

            3. Agreed although there is real questions if prima nocta ever really happened or if it is a myth like the iron maiden and it’s use in the inquisition.

              There are also real questions if Jefferey Epstein ever really was murdered.

              Prima nocta, as policy, may not have existed but as a bit of a rebut to your comment that even arranged royal marriages were unconsummated until maturity is a wide swath of historic documentation of leaders and elites widely known for wading into their people and selecting underage girls and boys for sex as a part of ritual or cultural dominance/favor/ingratiation.

          2. “With all the notes, what’s one more?”


  35. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

  36. Typical bogus 'reason' argument: conflate "explicit sexual conduct" with "simulated sexual intercourse" and then claim that because there's no intercourse, there's no sexual conduct. So it's "reason's" position (hah) that twerking isn't sexually explicit? Why does 'reason' want child pornography to exist?

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs. Or pedophiles.

  37. Are . . . is this, seriously, the hill you want to die on?

    1. Ted Cruz is almost as bad as Orange Man, so yes.

  38. I hadn't really been following the story, but the comments here are quite enlightening in showing the nastiness of Netflix's behavior.

    Is it illegal? By all means investigate!

    1. And, yes, the "it's OK to show this because we're saying how bad it is" dodge is an old one. There are clever ways to deplore-while-titillating. Gross.

      1. They can do, say, a gangster movie where the protagonist lives a glamorous lifestyle, enjoys himself, and then at the end you kill him off to show Crime Doesn't Pay. The tacked-on ending doesn't wipe out the crime-is-fun vibe of the rest of the film.

        And so forth.

  39. OK. Sullum added to the "Don't leave alone with children" list.

  40. What about that drag queen kid Desmond? The left loved that 10-year kid dressed in drag and does burlesque.

  41. I apologize if others have made this point already, but this article is plainly wrong on the law. "Sexually explicit conduct" also includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." The latter does not require nudity, at least according to the federal circuit courts that have developed the so-called Dost factors. Instead, the court will consider such things as the setting, the attire, the poses/behavior of the child, and the camerawork (e.g., does the camera focus on pubic regions). It is clear that it is at least plausible that a fact finder, whether jury or judge, could find scenes from Cuties to rise to the level of impermissible CP. And, if such a finding were to take place in a criminal prosecution, then yes, the director could go to jail for a decade at least, and the Netflix execs who decided to stream these scenes to millions of people should go to jail *for life.*

    1. Also, I pointed out above the explicit charge of child porn is a bit autistic. You can't take out an ad in your local paper asking kids to send you pictures of their genitals; even if you don't use any pictures of children or even pictures at all in your advertising. Moreover, even if you did it doesn't mean you haven't effectively participated in the production of child porn much less committed other crimes (sex-based or not) worthy of investigation.

      The funny thing is, even exceedingly conservative libertarians are pretty *libertine* about this; readily acknowledging that passive distribution (and even passive consumption) doesn't necessarily represent a crime, especially relative to the original solicitation and production. The people out there who want to watch pre-pubescent girls twerk may be sick fucks but, so long as all they do is watch, they haven't committed any crime.

  42. I couldn't even watch this. Jesus h Khrist how can they even defend this? Close up pelvic shots and long pauses so they could just take the view in. What a shit hole movie. It's the state of media today.

  43. Well, we've normalized all kinds of sex so maybe the push is now towards accepting little girls.

    It's depraved and disgusting but whaddya gonna do. People even bothering to defend this are immoral. Yes, I just made that judgment call. And I think that anyone connected to that show or mounts a defence of it, should get a beating.

    We're all going to hell.

    1. well put.

    1. Amen to that one Longtobefree

  44. Cuties is child pornography.
    Full stop.
    It isn't art.
    It isn't a "statement about .....blah-blah-blah".
    Mr. Sullum, you know all of that is all just pure bull***t.
    Sophistry in support of normalizing child abuse.
    It is simply Hollywood and their sycophants, looking at you Reason, you too Mr. Sullum, trying to somehow normalize the most vile human/criminal behavior, in order to "inoculate the perverts" in their community.
    Good to know where Reason/Jacob Sullum stand on this topic.
    wtf is wrong with you ?

    1. Rusty Shaklefjord: You are so moral. Praise your life for your perfect morality. Thanks be to god you are on this earth to keep us all in line. Cast down the infidels that dare to have a different opinion. Cast down the people who would like to make an actual thoughtful discussion around this. Rusty is great.

  45. What is truly disturbing is social media could make this a discussion about what 11 year old girls are emulating. Or, when does a girl suddenly go from this being bad to this being part of a show paying hundreds of thousands of dollars? Did Brittney Spears just suddenly learn to dance sensually at ... hmmm 16? 21? 14? No previous knowledge needed. Why don't we have a conversation about how this social phenomenon happens and if it's actually problematic or not. That seems to be what the creators of the film were looking for and it might have been the result a few years ago. Now it's just another talking point of outrage to show how moral someone is. Sorry but I'm not believing it is really about the children and not more about the fake moral high ground.

  46. every one says about this post but i ask to...READ MORE

  47. Maybe it's time we made children illegal.

    No children = No child pornography.

    After a couple of centuries... the problem just solves itself.

  48. "repeatedly and insistently" propositioning women isn't a crime either. Yet when it comes to Weinstein or the head of Amazon Studios Reason spares no effort to condemn such actions. But when it comes to prepubescent girls twerking on camera Reason plays damage control. Why? Because its the current leftist fad to defend such things and the current right wing fad to oppose such things. The absolute state of Libertarians.

  49. just began a month and a half back and I've gotten 2 check for an aggregate of $3,200...this is the best choice I set aside a few minutes! "Much thanks to you for giving me this remarkable chance to profit from home. This additional money has changed my life in such a variety of ways, express gratitude toward you!".......GOOD LUCK .................CLICK HERE.........Click For Full Detail.

  50. Start your home business right now. Spend more time with your family and earn.Start bringing 55$/hour just on a computer. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously...... Click For Full Detail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.