That seems like work. And seems like watching a few minutes of a movie I don't have any interest in watching.

I mean.... we know there aren't any naked kids. It's on Netflix. Can't be any worse than that movie Kids from 1995. That one was actually specifically sexual.

victor809 wrote:

About time you got ethics.🥃 On me if I live closer.

Smooth light wrote:

Dude, it is so much worse... kids I got... super sexual, ya... but it doesn't graphically depict kids the way this movie does...

Cuties has 11 year old girls in skimpy outfits humping the floor and seductively sucking their own fingers...

One of the Netflix cautions of the film states that an 11 year old girl has her pants forcibly removed and the camera then zooms in on her underwear covered buttocks...

There aren't reasons... just child sexualization for the sake of child sexualization...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I've never boycotted anything in my life as far as I can remember... Netflix will never get another penny from me... a quick Google search will tell you why you should cancel as well...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

I'm with Opel!
Creativity is dead anyway, current art has been propped up by the creativity of the 60s for years now. The only original "art" coming out these days is filth, deception or "reality". Which isn't creative at all.
Even stand up is dead.&now sports is all whacked & the academy awards have racist pc quotas for art.
Leftists ruin everything even themselves

Dg west deptford wrote:

Dude, it is so much worse... kids I got... super sexual, ya... but it doesn't graphically depict kids the way this movie does...

Cuties has 11 year old girls in skimpy outfits humping the floor and seductively sucking their own fingers...

One of the Netflix cautions of the film states that an 11 year old girl has her pants forcibly removed and the camera then zooms in on her underwear covered buttocks...

There aren't reasons... just child sexualization for the sake of child sexualization...

opelmanta1900 wrote: