all 9 comments

[–]send_nasty_stuff 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is this post suppose to be sarcasm? 15 year old dating and teen awkwardness around attractive men isn't 'grooming' it's natural development. When you become an adolescent you're suppose to start thinking about dating and relationships because your hormonal profile is changing and you're becoming a man or women slowly. This is common sense. We shouldn't force adolescences into hyper sexuality or the adult industry (or anyone for that matter) but that's not what any of those 1960's episodes are doing from my perspective.

Netflix's cuties that had 8-12 year old actresses twerking like strippers is grooming. Using pre adolescents in commercials with sex toys is grooming or any type of highly sexualized context is grooming. Taking pre adolescents to tranny drag shows and letting them get on stage and dance for money like Desmond is Amazing is grooming. Making children's stuff animals and toys that glorify BDSM and satanism like Belenciaga is grooming.

Allowing children near any type of LGBTQ event is grooming IMHO because the LGBTQ community implicitly encourages child sexuality. Their leaders and 'founders' are frequently found preaching about lowering the age of consent or removing parental right from heterosexual families. (see RBG, Ginsburg, Paglia, Foucault, etc) The homosexuals within the LGBTQ community are especially bad because a huge majority of them were essentially groomed and raped by older men as children or young adolescents and they've essentially identified with their aggressor in adulthood and see nothing wrong with continuing the cycle of rape. It's disgusting and the fact that it's protected and common in 2023 is vomit inducing.

[–]AmWomanDontCallMeBro[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you don't want to watch the Gidget episodes I linked, I don't blame you.

If you haven't watched it, then your comment isn't about what I posted. Your comment is about things that were already on your mind.

I agree the "Desmond is amazing" and "cuties" and the Balenciaga debacles are hideous displays of what the media moguls are trying to brainwash everyone with. It's beyond horrifying.

But I'm talking about Gidget. My post is about Gidget. Can we please focus here?

[–]send_nasty_stuff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did get a chance to watch some of the Big Kahuana episode with the older male asking the 15 year old to lay down and hold a cigarette and act like his girl friend. I agree that it's definitely sexualizing a teen girl which is uncouth and degenerate. However, this level of subversion from Hollywood is nothing compared to even the films in the 70's (Brook Shields first film and some of the early work by Jodie Foster for example). Those actresses were way younger and portraying way younger characters. What's going on today is far worse and the focus should be on the grooming going on today not the teen dating stuff going on in the 50's and 60's. Mid and late Teens should be considering dating and marrying if they are ready because that's when you start becoming a women. It's the early teen adolescent and the child sexualizing that's the major issue.

[–]yellowsnow2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Read the history of the regime of Mao and it's utilization of exactly what we are seeing today.

During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Mao’s famous political slogan ‘The times have changed, men and women are the same’ (时代不同了, 男女都一样) asserted that men and women were equal in political consciousness and physical strength. However, the slogan’s seeming emphasis on gender equality misconstrued the concepts of equality and sameness..

The state created movements of children to push gender neutral group think. Much the same as we are seeing just without the sexualized component. Gender as a category was credited with solely political and pragmatic meaning and was utilized as a means for the communist government to achieve its own political and cultural agenda. Collectivism always seeks for collective sameness and attacks uniqueness and self individualization.

By dividing the populous by every aspect like gender, class, race, religion exc.. the slavery system we call communism always seeks to dismantle the normal strong family unit while dismantling the bonds of the community units. This is done for obvious control reasons. In that system the state then seeks to become the replacement of the human desire for bond of family, community, and god.

But these are just tactics and systems of domination and control. Not ideologies the rulers care about. Today's use of these gender methods have more to do with slowing birth rates (think one child policies of the past) and conditioning for a future of state controlled births (eugenics). With the scientific genetics knowledge of today they desire to control all new humans and would like the populous to all be sterilized. They have been slowly working on that for decades by chemicals contaminating our food and environment.

I could go on but i think this is enough for the general idea of this aspect. Don't forget they have been openly saying they are going to dismantle all countries for a one world government where you will own nothing and eat bugs. They only say that because the transition and frame work is close to complete.

[–]AmWomanDontCallMeBro[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay but your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

[–]yellowsnow2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your title asks "why would Hollywood produce things like this".

Hollywood, news, and all major media corporations have all been providing the propaganda and cultural manipulation for the agenda for decades.

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." --David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991

[–]ceck 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No doubt I'm reading way too deeply into this, again these are subtle hints in this cute wholesome show, but my eyes are wide open. These are subconscious thoughts I had and they sound ridiculous when I write them out but here it is.

Nobody is truly objective. Every public thinker takes the risk of sounding ridiculous to other thinkers, and every person takes the risk of sounding ridiculous to his own inner critic. So I advise you to embrace the ridiculousness, as long as it can't be traced back to your real-world physical address.

We know how the CIA and their psychological manipulation hides in plain sight and they call us crazy for calling them out on it.

I think you have hit on something significant, but I also think it's NOT direct CIA planning. It's cultural shift prodded onward by decadent Hollywood elites with some indirect ties to the CIA. The Sexual Revolution picked up speed in the 1960s, but loosening sexual mores were causing social tensions for decades before that -- in my humble opinion. Of course, because I am voicing my thoughts publicly, I am taking the risk of seeming ridiculous.

[–]ceck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Put on your tin foil hats and watch the first couple episodes of this show if you can stomach it.

It would not fly in today's overly-sensitive climate.

I have not watched all of these episodes, but thanks for telling me that they are on YouTube. I never would have stopped to look for them. I do not see them as grooming. I think you may be oversimplifying. The cultural issues around teenaged sexual desire are complicated.

Edit: The more I watch the show, the more moderate it appears. I really do not see the Gidget show as grooming at all. It would be tranquil if everyone could live in perfect chastity, free from sexual thoughts, free from the desire to "be in love," but that is a world of asexual angels, not a world of human beings. Humans can be de-sexualized by force, but the results are never tranquil or free from suffering.

[–]ceck 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A mature woman recently linked to Gidget, a hedonistic show of the 1960s, and opined that it showed the sexual grooming of children for sexual abuse.

In my opinion, the core problem of Gidget is not that it encourages the sexual abuse of prepubescent children. (It might encourage improper sexual relationships between mature men and immature teenaged girls -- I have not watched enough to comment on that.) The core problem of Gidget is that it is an excessively optimistic, early-1960s vision of how much fun the Sexual Revolution would be if only people were all pretty and rich.

(The Sexual Revolution was undermining monogamy by encouraging extramarital fornication. One key tactic of the Sexual Revolution was the idea that the "age of consent" justified fornication. Traditionally, "age of consent" only meant "old enough to marry a single socially appropriate man" not "old enough to fornicate with multiple men of one's choosing." The problem is that when the Sexual Revolution handed all women the power of extramarital promiscuity, it intensified competition between women.)

In fact, in the real world, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was attended by venereal diseases, increased sexual violence, decreased reproduction, and a host of social problems. But the people who were making Gidget did not foresee the chaos that would soon become evident. But Gidget is not scary to modern mature women because it is about child sex abuse. Gidget is scary to mature women because it shows that a very young post-pubescent girl is a sexual competitor to mature pre-menopausal ladies. Sally Fields, the star of the show, was apparently 19 years old when she made the show. The real problem is not that she had a baby face that would somehow encourage child sex abuse. The real problem is not whether her character was 19 years old or some age younger than that. The problem is that even a 19-year-old girl is really quite immature, foolish, and childish -- but Gidget shows that such a foolish female can compete in the sexual marketplace.

A pre-menopausal woman who is X years old can say to herself, "Of course I am smart and wise and mature -- of course I can be trusted with the power of extramarital fornication -- but that little girl Gidget -- she is a tiny child, she is pre-pubescent, she must not be sexual competition for me!" Now perhaps a woman of X years is truly wise and mature and trustworthy -- or perhaps not -- or perhaps it varies from woman to woman. But regardless of wisdom levels, the Sexual Revolution pressured all women to act sluttier in order to compete for high-quality men.