Blog See all Articles

The Left stakes out new frontiers in sexualizing children

Why are squeamish little kids being forced to learn how to use vibrators?

Tina Trent author image / /   2 Comments

Cut Videos is the source of this repellent video apparently depicting real parents teaching their young children how to use sex toys and masturbate. 

The children, some of whom appear to be as young as six, squirm and cover their eyes as the adults hand them vibrators and coax them to participate in sex talk before cameras. Asked to say out loud whether she masturbates, one young girl fidgets in embarrassment. “Cameras everywhere,” she whispers.

The children are being forced to participate in explicit sex talk, holding vibrators, in front of a camera crew, their faces fully exposed.

Both legally and ethically this is child porn. According to the U.S. Department of Justice:

Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor … Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Cut Videos claims on their website to be an educational, inspirational, and entertainment channel. “Cut spreads stories for fun, for serious, and for real – bringing the internet together one awkward moment at a time,” reads the text in front of a photo of three elderly women sharing a marijuana bong. Another Cut channel focusing exclusively on very young children “promotes empathy through play.” A third channel appears to be about police brutality and includes videos of small children being prompted to talk about their feelings about the police.

There are dozens of videos on the Cut channels, but a handful of themes predominate. 

First, there are dozens of videos of people either smoking pot together or engaging in drinking games to the point of serious intoxication. It is apparently supposed to be thought-provoking that incongruous groupings become high together: fathers and daughters, moms and sons, grandmothers and grandchildren, ex-cops, and one video with a rabbi, an Episcopal priest, and an atheist. 

Second, there are multiple videos of parents talking with their children about sex, masturbation, where babies come from, when they lost their virginity (both the parents and the children), and other sexual themes.

In a third set of videos, people are separated by types (i.e. black men, women) and asked brief questions. “Does Size Matter?” is a typical query for white women; black men are asked about their feelings about police, and Native Americans are asked about Christopher Columbus. If this doesn’t sound like fun, that’s because it isn’t.

An entire Cut video channel is dedicated to children playing, tasting food from other cultures (that’s the “empathy” part), and going on play trips with their parents. These videos link to the children on other forms of social media and are littered with appeals for “representation,” apparently in the hope that their children (who are the same children depicted in the sexualized videos) will become Internet stars.

One of the odd features of the sex talk videos is that the younger children’s faces are clearly in the camera line while their parents keep their heads down or turned sideways. Whether this is intentional or accidental, it’s creepy, more so when one considers that these parents are seeking even higher levels of online exposure for these young kids.               

Unsurprisingly, Cut videos appear to be filmed in Portland, Oregon. The people involved in Cut seem to think they’re engaging in some hipper version of Children’s Television Workshop. They use a lot of the editing techniques and set pieces common to children’s television shows: loopy sound effects and cut frames, visits to zoos and icky food themes. But this is not Mr. Rogers with his gentle presence letting children be children. It isn’t even Pee Wee Herman who, for all the problems in his private life, produced a show that could be watched by children though it wasn’t really for children. The themes on display here aren’t just adult in nature: they are sad pathologies parading as insight.

In one video, a father sheepishly gets stoned with his adult son. The father does not look as if he wants to be in the video: the son brags about smoking pot every day, as do most of the children in the parent-child pot smoking films. Eventually, the father begins vomiting onscreen. The vomiting is recorded, as is his exiting the set for the bathroom. The son remains, joking about his father’s violent illness.

In the same video, a college-age daughter smokes pot with her father. He grows increasingly nervous; she also talks about smoking pot all the time. The father says timidly that he hopes she isn’t abusing the drug. What level of denial, of abject terror at saying the politically incorrect thing, would drive a parent to abuse drugs on video with a child who clearly has a drug problem and yet remain silent about that problem? 

There are videos of uncomfortable-looking older women being subjected to graphic descriptions of their daughters’ lesbian sex, videos of small children being shown how to put condoms on bananas by their mothers.

The people who make these videos clearly believe that they are unusually open-minded. They are so open-minded and uninhibited that they will videotape themselves describing their ejaculations to their embarrassed mothers, for the world to see. It is easy to imagine these people congratulating each other for possessing the correct political views. 

But other people – especially the young children and the elderly – keep popping up in their films looking as if they have been taken hostage and forced to perform. What they are really being forced to do is approve of behavior that is clearly disturbing to them. But all of these people, even the very young ones, seem to know that despite all the “open-mindedness,” there is still one unforgivable taboo: it is forbidden to refuse to participate in the orgy.

This isn’t “liberation” from anything. It’s a sad, grim cage.

The Author

Tina Trent

Tina Trent writes about crime and policing, political radicals, social service programs, and academia. She has published several reports for America’s Survival and helped the late Larry Grathwohl release a…

Comments

  • Noyb Nal

    a sad, grim cage indeed.

  • pfbonney

    Wow. I could never get myself to watch a film (o.k. – “video”) like that.

    So this is “progressive”! I can’t imagine what they would consider to be “regressive”.