Netflix child porn controversy - Desire

[Katy]

I've seen a few articles about this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/08/15/netflix-film-desire-accused-showing-child-porn/995953002/

I've had issues with Netflix kids content before, and when I posted quite a few people here thought I was being oversensitive, or that I was just sensitive because there was some sexually triggering material for one of the kids staying with us at the time. While that kid is no longer here, I'm wondering if I'm still oversensitive to this, or if you think this is pretty disgusting too.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Katy

[JIN MOUSA]

Wow. That's exceptionally problematic.

I'm also upset that the director thinks that there's no problem with it solely because the child actresses didn't know what they were doing.

[SKL]

Very disturbing to me.

[ktgrok]

9 minutes ago, JIN MOUSA said:

Wow. That's exceptionally problematic.

I'm also upset that the director thinks that there's no problem with it solely because the child actresses didn't know what they were doing.

And what happens when they are older and find out!!!!

[JIN MOUSA]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

And what happens when they are older and find out!!!!

Right! They're not going to be children forever, or really even for that long. 

Plus there's the whole issue of the normalization of and desensitization to child porn, for you know, people in general. 

[SKL]

We don't have Netflix, and this is one more reason I'm not in a hurry to subscribe.

[Pen]

6 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I’m not going to watch it but I’m not cancelling the service over it. 

 

This could use a vote option. 

Some people could also find it disturbing, but not cancel subscription. 

[Catwoman]

What I want to know is what kind of parents would allow their child to accept this kind of acting job??????

[TechWife]

2 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

What I want to know is what kind of parents would allow their child to accept this kind of acting job??????

Seems to me this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. 

[Katy]

16 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

This could use a vote option. 

Some people could also find it disturbing, but not cancel subscription. 

 

Added

[Momto6inIN]

This quote from the director makes me want to scream. Um, sorry, no, *my* level of depravity is not the problem here, bud.

"Everything works inside the spectators’ heads, and how you think this scene was filmed will depend on your level of depravity."

 

[JIN MOUSA]

8 minutes ago, Momto5inIN said:

This quote from the director makes me want to scream. Um, sorry, no, *my* level of depravity is not the problem here, bud.

"Everything works inside the spectators’ heads, and how you think this scene was filmed will depend on your level of depravity."

 

That too. I'm generally not a cuss-er, but I read that and think, "Bulls***."

The more I think about really the director's response to this, the more I am bothered. He *knew* it was going to be a problem, so he took all of these steps in creating the scene (only acting coach present, under parent surveillance, documenting the process), without seeming to assess whether the *content* of the scene was a bigger problem than the process.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Wow.  This will be something I really consider and may cancel Netflix over.  

The excuse that the child actor was unaware of the meaning of the scene is irrelevant.  Many children who are exploited in child porn are unaware of their own exploitation.  That DOESN'T MAKE IT OK!!!  WTF???  Sick creeps are still going to be getting off on that scene.  Seriously, how can the parents live with themselves?  Anything for a dollar...  It's sickening.  

 

[JustEm]

 

Was the girl actually being coached to masterbate(without her knowing what she was being asked to do) or was she coached to pretend to ride a horse and make specific facial expressions so the audience realizes what the character was doing. Because those are 2 very different things. 

[ktgrok]

9 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Was the girl actually being coached to masterbate(without her knowing what she was being asked to do) or was she coached to pretend to ride a horse and make specific facial expressions so the audience realizes what the character was doing. Because those are 2 very different things. 

The second, but um, when the girl finds out, when she was older, that she was tricked into appearing to masturbate for an audience of millions, without her knowledge or consent, how can that not be damaging?

[JustEm]

22 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The second, but um, when the girl finds out, when she was older, that she was tricked into appearing to masturbate for an audience of millions, without her knowledge or consent, how can that not be damaging?

 

Oh, I have an issue with that. But the scene is not child porn if it is the second

[PrincessMommy]

1 hour ago, Monica_in_Switzerland said:

Wow.  This will be something I really consider and may cancel Netflix over.  

The excuse that the child actor was unaware of the meaning of the scene is irrelevant.  Many children who are exploited in child porn are unaware of their own exploitation.  That DOESN'T MAKE IT OK!!!  WTF???  Sick creeps are still going to be getting off on that scene.  Seriously, how can the parents live with themselves?  Anything for a dollar...  It's sickening.  

 

exactly.

 

That is very disturbing.  Gosh  I may not cancel my Netflix sub, but I will surely be watchful of this particular director.   I'm not usually very comfortable with blacklisting, but this may be an exception. 

[Momto6inIN]

7 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Oh, I have an issue with that. But the scene is not child porn if it is the second

I'm confused ... wouldn't a woman pretending to masturbate and have an orgasm be considered porn? So why wouldn't it be if it was a child?

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

Oh, I have an issue with that. But the scene is not child porn if it is the second

 

Legally, it is.  Sexually suggestive scenes featuring children are child porn, even if the child is unaware of the implications. The only reason Netflix hasn't already been given some sort of charge or injunction is that the girl was clothed. That doesn't change the fact that the content is featuring sexually suggestive content of a prepubescent child. I seriously doubt it's a mistake that the filmmakers are from Argentina, where it would be difficult for anyone here to charge them, but Netflix (or one of its officers) could still be charged with distribution.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

28 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Legally, it is.  Sexually suggestive scenes featuring children are child porn, even if the child is unaware of the implications. The only reason Netflix hasn't already been given some sort of charge or injunction is that the girl was clothed. That doesn't change the fact that the content is featuring sexually suggestive content of a prepubescent child. I seriously doubt it's a mistake that the filmmakers are from Argentina, where it would be difficult for anyone here to charge them, but Netflix (or one of its officers) could still be charged with distribution.

Legally this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.  The fact the child is clothed and did not actually engage in a sexual act matters.  The odds of Netflix facing any distribution charges are effectively zero.

[JustEm]

35 minutes ago, Momto5inIN said:

I'm confused ... wouldn't a woman pretending to masturbate and have an orgasm be considered porn? So why wouldn't it be if it was a child?

 

It would probably depend on the context of her doing so. In a film, what is the purpose of the scene. A scene like that can be used to try to sexually arouse the audience, to explain an aspect of a character, to move the plot in a specific direction, etc.

 

[JustEm]

I'm not trying to defend Netflix or the film maker. I'd have to see the scene in context to decide how outrageous I find it. But I was simply trying to get an idea of if it actual child porn, no if it was an acceptable thing to do.

[shawthorne44]

 

We recently got upset with Netflix and cancelled.  We were a little slow to pull the trigger so by the time we called, it was obvious that a steady stream of people were cancelling.   This makes me want to double cancel if that were possible.  But, it makes me more certain that I am glad I cancelled.  I told DH the other day that I hoped Netflix would change course and in a year or so we could renew.  I expect that I'll miss the DVD service.  Although, lately we've been slow to cycle through the DVD's, so we might be better off just buying what we want.  

[Selkie]

Those poor girls. I'm sure it won't happen, but I would love to see the parents, the director, and anyone else involved get nailed on child abuse charges.

[Liz CA]

It's disturbing however not surprising. The constant move toward more explicit material, pushing the envelope even in prime time shows, etc. will likely continue until the masses rise up and demand a change. The porn industry has a LOT of money behind them and if we want to admit it or not, they have a large customer base. 

Stella M provided a link in a previous thread (maybe yours?) that sheds some light on this issue and offers some suggestions for those who are concerned:

https://www.culturereframed.org/about-us/

As far as Netflix removing the movie / show, I think it will depend on how many people voice their opinions and how strongly we will advocate - after all Netflix is a business and presumably concerned about their bottom line and maybe even their reputation. 

[RootAnn]

From what I've seen of the show, it is full of depravity. That particular scene doesn't seem much worse than the rest of the trash. I don't know why people watch any of it. [We don't subscribe to Netflix.]

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Have any of you ever watched the Exorcist?  A certain scene in that film is more graphic and disturbing.

[Janeway]

One thing that really bothers me is that little girl's face is out there and connected with it. Kids at school and through her life will know. I don't care if their mothers knew what was going on. There are plenty of rotten mothers out there. That guy who made it was a perv. He is not a father first..not to these girls.

[shawthorne44]

 

I was thinking about this some more.  If this were a movie that you had to go see, then just not watching would be sufficient.   That is because your money wouldn't be funding it.   But, with Netflix, if you subscribe to Netflix, you pay for every show they have.  Whether you watch it or not, you paid for it.   So, if you continue to subscribe you are complicit in the next show they produce that is like this (or worse).   They always want to push the envelope.  

 

[Katy]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

I was thinking about this some more.  If this were a movie that you had to go see, then just not watching would be sufficient.   That is because your money wouldn't be funding it.   But, with Netflix, if you subscribe to Netflix, you pay for every show they have.  Whether you watch it or not, you paid for it.   So, if you continue to subscribe you are complicit in the next show they produce that is like this (or worse).   They always want to push the envelope.  

 

 

I agree.  Talked to DH about it and we agreed to cancel. He said the best assumption you can make about it is it's sexual exploitation, and he's fine with me not wanting to finance them, after the questionable material in the kids section a year ago.

[shawthorne44]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I dunno.  That kind of feels like saying that if I watch Shrek show, I am funding any and all problematic things any Dreamworks producer or director might do.  I feel like it's way more complicated than that.  

 

Films are different in that you only pay for what you watch.   

With Netflix, you are basically pre-paying for everything they offer.   Whether you watch it or not, you pay for it and Netflix gets its money.  

The problem is, this movie is getting attention because it is being talked about.  DH watched it and said it was a crappy movie and that scene had no reason to be in it.   His theory is that the scene is there to save the movie.   If people don't vote with their wallets, they will get the message that it was an excellent ploy and they'll do it again.   

[Tanaqui]

Quote

I'm confused ... wouldn't a woman pretending to masturbate and have an orgasm be considered porn? So why wouldn't it be if it was a child?

 

Not normally, no. If the point of the scene is to arouse viewers, or we're seeing genitals, then it might be... but if all we're seeing is a woman with her hands moving under a blanket making faces, that's not. Nor is it porn if you see a couple bouncing around under a blanket, or see them disheveled and he's shirtless and she has the covers pulled all the way up to her shoulders, and so on. Or, even if it is more explicit, it's still not porn if it's, like, a traumatic rape scene and everybody is upset afterwards and going through PTSD and whatever. The content has to be explicit, and the purpose has to be as well.

Quite a lot of scenes of sexual activity are not, in fact, pornographic.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not this scene, given the ages of the actors in question, was appropriate. Special care does have to be taken when filming scenes involving actors who are minors precisely because they don't understand everything that's going on.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tanaqui

[frogger]

Honestly, I wish we had cancelled Netflix multiple times over but my husband uses it not me so I didn't vote but I will mention it to him. I'd love to get rid of it.  I don't like supporting many of their shows.

Edited August 17, 2018 by frogger

[ChocolateReignRemix]

While Netflix does receive money whether you watch the movie or not via your subscription, the success of their shows is based on how often they are viewed.  If you don't watch it you will be sending a message. 

[lavender's green]

We had netflix years ago but canceled it because we weren't using it very often. Recently we got it again to watch some old shows, but I realized I could buy the box sets of those shows at our used book store, for about the cost of one month of netflix. I also don't like how my kids go downstairs it the mornings and just watch stuff. It doesn't seem well filtered for appropriate kid content. I'd much rather have them use roku media player stuff like before, which is all hand-picked by us. Add in these pushing-the-envelope things Netflix has been doing, like last year, and I see no reason to keep it. I'm not exactly dropping netflix because of this show (which may or may not be bad, but I'm not going to watch it to find out), it's just that the calculation really tips in favor of just getting it out of our house.

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, lavender's green said:

We had netflix years ago but canceled it because we weren't using it very often. Recently we got it again to watch some old shows, but I realized I could buy the box sets of those shows at our used book store, for about the cost of one month of netflix. I also don't like how my kids go downstairs it the mornings and just watch stuff. It doesn't seem well filtered for appropriate kid content. I'd much rather have them use roku media player stuff like before, which is all hand-picked by us. Add in these pushing-the-envelope things Netflix has been doing, like last year, and I see no reason to keep it. I'm not exactly dropping netflix because of this show (which may or may not be bad, but I'm not going to watch it to find out), it's just that the calculation really tips in favor of just getting it out of our house.

 

Yes, that was part of the equation for us too.  We found there was no way to filter out inappropriate kids content without restricting the children's section to preschool level content only. Which left maybe 3 shows and a few movies we re-watch over and over on Netflix. Half of which we already have DVD or BluRays for, it's just easier for me to stream them than to flip through discs or get them all set up on a media server, and DH doesn't have time to do it either.  But I can spend less than a year's worth of Netflix subscriptions buying those full shows, streaming, on Amazon, which is just as convenient for streaming as Netflix.  And DH pointed out that Disney is slowly removing content from other services in favor of their own service, which means the handful of Disney movies the kids watched on Netflix will soon be gone too.  They seem to be moving further away from family friendly content in favor of competing with the sorts of mature content that used to be available only on late night premium cable channels. It isn't just that kids movie from last year, or just this tasteless example now, it's a slow decline in quality content in favor of pushing the envelope trash. The few family-friendly options tend to be low quality every time we try something new.  So we're just done.  Especially because if it's mindless background noise for me I've switched to playing HGTV or DIY network recently.  You don't even need to login with a cable subscription for those channels anymore, there's just no way to skip commercials.

[Momto6inIN]

19 hours ago, hjffkj said:

 

It would probably depend on the context of her doing so. In a film, what is the purpose of the scene. A scene like that can be used to try to sexually arouse the audience, to explain an aspect of a character, to move the plot in a specific direction, etc.

 

 

13 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Not normally, no. If the point of the scene is to arouse viewers, or we're seeing genitals, then it might be... but if all we're seeing is a woman with her hands moving under a blanket making faces, that's not. Nor is it porn if you see a couple bouncing around under a blanket, or see them disheveled and he's shirtless and she has the covers pulled all the way up to her shoulders, and so on. Or, even if it is more explicit, it's still not porn if it's, like, a traumatic rape scene and everybody is upset afterwards and going through PTSD and whatever. The content has to be explicit, and the purpose has to be as well.

Quite a lot of scenes of sexual activity are not, in fact, pornographic.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not this scene, given the ages of the actors in question, was appropriate. Special care does have to be taken when filming scenes involving actors who are minors precisely because they don't understand everything that's going on.

I suppose that's technically true. I'm thinking specifically of the comedy movie "There's Something About Mary" when Ben Stiller masturbates right before his date with Cameron Diaz. It's clearly meant to be funny and I wouldn't call it pornographic (just gross and inappropriate).

But even a scene that is clearly comedic like that one still has a "titillating" aspect to it that is obviously meant to arouse at least some erotic thoughts in the viewer (even as it also simultaneously arouses laughter). Maybe not to exactly to the same extent and intensity that porn does, but at least part of its intent is the same. And I can't imagine any other masturbation scene being any different, including this one. Any titillating aspect meant to arouse even a minuscule amount of erotic thoughts in the viewer focusing on a child should be considered child porn.

[JustEm]

23 minutes ago, Momto5inIN said:

 

I suppose that's technically true. I'm thinking specifically of the comedy movie "There's Something About Mary" when Ben Stiller masturbates right before his date with Cameron Diaz. It's clearly meant to be funny and I wouldn't call it pornographic (just gross and inappropriate).

But even a scene that is clearly comedic like that one still has a "titillating" aspect to it that is obviously meant to arouse at least some erotic thoughts in the viewer (even as it also simultaneously arouses laughter). Maybe not to exactly to the same extent and intensity that porn does, but at least part of its intent is the same. And I can't imagine any other masturbation scene being any different, including this one. Any titillating aspect meant to arouse even a minuscule amount of erotic thoughts in the viewer focusing on a child should be considered child porn.

 

I would disagree that the scene you mentioned is meant to arouse any erotic thoughts in the viewer.  And if that is what the director intended for that scene then they missed the mark with entirely with me.  I could agree that the scene could arouse erotic thoughts for some viewers, but that doesn't mean that was its intent

[TravelingChris]

I had a very similar conversation with one of my daughters today.  A song came on the radio that I like and she doesn't because the singer has made repeated both stupid and extremely offensive statements regarding mental illness, etc.  I told her that I am trying to avoid as much as possible crazy statements being made and celebrity news in general.  I see things on various social media and regular media so I do know about idiotic things all too much, but my dd seemed outraged that I am not keeping up with every celebrity or entertainment scandal.  I told her that it isn't best for people with anxiety issues to obsess about these things.

With regards to this,  I do not find it okay to subject children to such acting but I am not really a fan of children acting anyway.  Am I going to watch the show?  No, and such stuff wouldn't come up on suggestions for me either just because of the other shows I watch.  So I am not cancelling Netflix.  I do not even begin to understand what their 'original programming" means.  Sometimes, it is something they actually produced and directed and cast, etc. OTOH, with foriegn shows, they often say Netflix original programming but it isn;t at all.  Or at least not in the beginning.  It turns out to be StudioCanal or whoever and if you research where and how the show was made, (which is something I do  often), you will find that Netflix only partnered up later.  (Oh and I just checked. Netflix bought screening rights).

And thinking back,  I didn't like either the Calvin Klein jeans ad or Blue Bayoo (which I never saw) with Brooke Shields as a child actress either.  But I have bought some nice Calvin Klein dresses for my young adult or late teen daughters and wasn't even thinking about ads from 20 years ago or more when I did.  I have watched a movie by Roman Polanski without even knowing he was the director until years later.   SHould I be looking through our dvd collection and throwing all movies and tv where Harvey Weinstein was somehow involved or maybe Les Moonves or I don't know who?

So I am the biggest Netflix watcher here and I will keep watching shows on it and Amazon and on CBS and NBC sports and whatever.  But I will not watch erotic thrillers or erotic comedies.  I do not think this is child porn, just a repulsive film. 

[katilac]

I seriously doubt the girls had no idea what they were doing. 

[Tanaqui]

About half of all kids are masturbating by the age of three years old, and it's a topic covered in many (but not all) books about puberty. I would not assume a nine year old does not know about masturbation simply because they are nine.

However, that doesn't mean they understood that this shoot was intended to look like masturbation, nor, if they did, if they really understand the potential ramifications of being filmed simulating that. I think their potential ignorance makes this a lot worse. Adult actors are given the choice to decline roles that involve the appearance of sexual activity. That might impact their careers, but they know about it. The claim that it's all right because they don't understand... well, that's utterly backwards.

[katilac]

36 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 The claim that it's all right because they don't understand... well, that's utterly backwards.

1

 

Good point. 

[jewellsmommy]

Children should not be permitted to be in movies labeled as erotic anything or that has an X rating (or whatever designates these nc-17?). If any company wants to make erotic films, fine whatever, but children have no idea what kind of movie they are being signed on to. These parents are too blinded by the opportunity or money or whatever to pass on these types of movies. Isn't there an organization that oversees children's roles in film? If not, there should be. Even animals are protected in films.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, jewellsmommy said:

Children should not be permitted to be in movies labeled as erotic anything or that has an X rating (or whatever designates these nc-17?). If any company wants to make erotic films, fine whatever, but children have no idea what kind of movie they are being signed on to. These parents are too blinded by the opportunity or money or whatever to pass on these types of movies. Isn't there an organization that oversees children's roles in film? If not, there should be. Even animals are protected in films.

Well considering that many actors who grew up in the industry say that child sexual abuse is rampant in Hollywood, I am not sure I get enough comfort from knowing there is an organization that oversees children's roles in film.

I'm a big believer in voting with our pocketbooks.  Honestly I think it is the only thing that moves some people.