/lit/ - Literature

>>16957029
>Netflix is a content aggregator. They don't really express any editorial stances.
>And, for fuck's sake, the show was intended to RAIL AGAINST THE SEXUALIZATION OF CHILDREN. There were middle-aged teenage girls wearing clothing many reasonable people might object to. Nonetheless, in Arkansas and much of the south, those girls could get bedded down by pudgy bastards with three Glock 17s next to their bed as comfort animals.
>You want to fight against pedophilia, start with that shit. Not calling every one a zionist shill on some obscure chatboard.
That movie was just meant to produce more hysteria. The overton window is constantly pushing against healthy relationships being "problematic" and you get shit like pic related.

>>16913193
>>16913203
These days the woke mob will kill you for saying shit like that.

>>16824434
>The fact that I can go to any social media right now for parent-produced softcore child pornography right
This is not something new.
Such was always the case with modeling. The modeling industry and the average person's lives are an entirely different thing. Comparing that to what peoples thoughts on age gap relationships is completely flawed.
It's like saying "since pedophilia goes on in Hollywood it will soon be acceptable for the average person"
If Hollywood wanted you to fuck kids, they would know how to push it to make you think it's normal. If Hollywood wanted you to be outraged by the idea of fucking kids, they would know how to make you think that way too.
It's not a slippery slope because the phenomenon was even worse to some extent back in the day. In '78 Brooke Shields was in a full frontal nude scene in a movie at the age of 12, 50 years ago in America you can find nudie mags of teen and even preteen girls. In europe, complete pornography.

The only direction the slippery slope is headed is AWAY from kiddie fugging. That much is obviously and clear to anyone who has been paying attention.

>>16438767
>>16438773
It's the future you chose, burgers.