No Animals Were Harmed

I can’t believe how many people are defending Cuties. We are used to warnings of “no animals were harmed in the creation of this movie” and we all think it’s a good thing that animals aren’t harmed.

And here actual live children – because the actresses aren’t robots, they are little kids – were harmed for months under the excuse of making some utterly inane point. And still people are curling their lips at the “right-wing freakout” over the exploitation and child abuse.

What’s really shocking is how many women are defending this. To them, it’s not OK to subject a grown actress to a sexual experience she doesn’t welcome in private but it’s perfectly fine publicly to do that to children who aren’t capable of consenting.

But hey, no animals were harmed in the filming of Cuties. What a relief.

16 thoughts on “No Animals Were Harmed”

  1. Rod has posted a nice review of this movie, drawing attention to the role of technology. Re smartphones, when Klara asks for one, at which age would you let her have it?


    “In what I think is the most important part of this movie — a theme that a better film could explore without descending into the filth it ostensibly criticizes — is the role that technology plays in corrupting these girls. There is no dirty old man who trains these kids to dress and act like sluts. They self-exploit through the smartphone and social media. Here’s a scene from when Amy is just beginning to hang out with the Cuties. They are in the girls’ bathroom at school. The Cuties are watching hardcore p*rn on a smartphone, and commenting on it in revolting detail

    At one point, Amy’s mother takes her to women’s prayer at the mosque. Amy slips a veil over her face, pretending to pray. But she’s really watching extremely provocative dancing, with nearly naked women doing lascivious lesbian routines. All of this is happening right under the noses of her mom, who has no idea what she’s up to with the smartphone (which she conceals, as she has stolen it).

    The other Cuties all have smartphones too, but their less strict parents have allowed it. They are blind to how the technology facilitates the corruption of their daughters. I tell you, whatever else it is, Cuties is the best possible public service commercial exhorting parents never, ever to give their children smartphones.”


    1. I remember how we discussed on this blog ways teens find to break parents’ passwords and evade control regarding what they watch on computer. Everybody agreed parental spying was wrong and only worked to destroy trust.

      If parents forbid smartphones, while themselves having one, doesn’t it create the forbidden fruit effect and make child more vulnerable later similar to cases of teens illegally binge drinking instead of drinking a bit of wine with their family on holidays (the later was my family’s approach)?

      I wouldn’t want not to have a smartphone, would you? Especially when everybody uses it for studying and keeping in touch with friends now, so one’s child would be socially handicapped without one.


      1. I absolutely believe that it’s the parents’ addiction to screens that’s damaging the children. The first generation of kids who were cared for as infants by screen-addicted mommies is going to be a very damaged generation. So yes, everybody should start with themselves.

        I love my phone with an uncommon passion. But when I’m home with my kid, the phone is never in the same room with us. She knows it exists but it’s not standing between us. I’m not holding it as a barrier to our contact. When we are together, the phone never ever ever EVER competes with her for my attention.

        That’s why working from home was so hard in quarantine. I’d have mountains of emails accumulating by the time I’d get a moment to look at them.

        So it’s not about having or having a screen in your possession. It’s the relationship you model between human and screen. Are you sending a message that the screen is crucial? That you can’t entertain yourself without it? That it’s more important than humans in your life? That you are incapable of being lost in thought without looking at a screen?

        In the analogy with alcohol, it’s one thing to have a few bottles of spirits in the bar waiting for an occasion and it’s a very different thing to be constantly glued to a bottle, always drunk and always in an affected mental state.


        1. I’ve seen many times mothers glued to the phone with small children walking along on the street side. I would not do it on the sidewalk, let alone the street side. I always held my kids by the hand when walking in proximity of car traffic when they were little. What the fuck could be so interesting on the screen that one would risk the life of a child for? I really don’t get it.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. The analyst answered this question with, “don’t give it to her for as long as humanly possible.”

      But not for the reason adduced here. I don’t have an obsession with porn or childhood curiosity towards sexual matters. It’s not an interesting topic for me at all. I think it’s huge moral panic over nothing. But this panic is being exploited to sneak in childhood sexual exploitation through concern trolling. It looks like Rod swallowed the bait. I won’t because I have many problems but sexual issues are really not among them.

      The reason why smartphones are bad for children is that they disrupt the normal functioning of a growing brain creating lifelong damage that we don’t fully understand yet but can predict with a degree of certainty. If you are thinking about whether to give a 5-year-old a pack of cigarettes or a smartphone, always go with the cigarettes. They are definitely better.


      1. OK, I read Rod’s post and especially the quoted comments and they immediately made me want to go do something mega slutty. There is much cluelessness, let’s put it that way. These are people who are literally manufacturing the very phenomenon they so dread. The comment by Annie of Arc especially reminded me very much of how I grew up. The results were… Let’s say they were the opposite of what was intended.


      2. I care more about porn than you, but Dreher’s single-minded obsession with that as the issue with kids having smartphones seems odd to me (though not surprising, from him.) Like that’s just one negative aspect of the modern internet. The main smartphone problem is what you describe, and the problem would remain if all sexual content disappeared from the internet.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I saw the trailer and it was garbage. From what I’ve heard about it, the film seems way less preposterous, though, but I don’t know more. I will not defend the film, but I have no valuable opinion since I didn’t saw it.


  3. I predicted long ago that if the media started pushing for the sexualization of young girls, it would be under the guise of “resisting the patriarchy” or “resisting oppressive parents” or something like that. It seems I was correct. Now I’m left to wonder first of all what’s “next” (bestiality?), second of all how they’ll push for .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.