Age-appropriateness of Disney's Cinderella

[Lursa]

There’s no such thing as a “gay kid”

Is there such a thing as a straight (heterosexual) kid?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I haven't decided what my vote is yet. I think I know where you might be going with this and the answer should be no age is appropriate for the message it sends about fantasy love. I think you're going somewhere different. However, I watched it at a young age, as did my daughter, and I don't think either of us was harmed. I loved the mice and that nothing died in that cartoon.

Bambi now, that's one that should be held off for a later age. I still won't watch the beginning, lol.

I don’t agree about Bambi. I think it’s important to introduce themes like death early to young children, my great grandmother grew up on a chicken farm and was skilled at butchering chickens long before she had her first period. I first butchered a chicken when I was 16 and many people these days have never done it, but I think learning about death, and it’s application to both humans and other forms of life at an early age is important.

And I think there’s been a major problem caused to society by this disconnection from the natural order as society has grown more “sanitary” over the past few decades

 

[CaughtInThe]

Cinderella was abused by her sisters, abused animals, catfished a prince and promoted gender stereotypes based on physical appearance and economic class. That makes it perfect to be viewed by kids 3-15

good stuff

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is there such a thing as a straight (heterosexual) kid?

I think mostly yes. It’s been documented before that primitive societies in Africa don’t even have words to describe homosexuality. Not that they hate homosexuals or are “homophobic” under modern understanding, but that they are literally baffled by the very concept, having never observed it.

This would seem to argue against the idea it’s a genetic condition people are “born” as

 

[Lursa]

Because two men engaging in a sexual used relationship is purely sexual,

Source this? Why do gay people marry? Why did they fight for marriage? I mean, they can get sex anytime...why do they want to live either other men or women and share lives and have families?

whereas a man and a woman is also spiritual and procreative.

That's a load of BS for many straight people having sex before they make a commitment to each other. And esp for men...who just want to have sex, period (sorry, it's not sexist, it's 'more' true for men than women I'm not judging it, I think it's fine for women to desire consensual casual sex too.)

And the very prevalent use of birth control proves the second one is wrong too.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Cinderella was abused by her sisters, abused animals, catfished a prince and promoted gender stereotypes based on physical appearance and economic class. That makes it perfect to be viewed by kids 3-15 or so but once they go to college and turn into pinko, commie, tree hugging snowflakes it will be WAY too triggering.

She didn’t catfish the prince. That’s a modern phenomenon

 

[Lursa]

I think mostly yes. It’s been documented before that primitive societies in Africa don’t even have words to describe homosexuality. Not that they hate homosexuals or are “homophobic” under modern understanding, but that they are literally baffled by the very concept, having never observed it.

This would seem to argue against the idea it’s a genetic condition people are “born” as

It wouldnt 'seem' to argue anything. Being gay is a minority demographic. Your odd example isnt validating anything.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Source this? Why do gay people marry? Why did they fight for marriage? I mean, they can get sex anytime...why do they want to live either other men or women and share lives and have families?

Well there was no real movement for homosexual “marriage” until the sexual revolution, it’s clear these tendencies previously existed, but were not sincerely regarded as marriage. The devaluing of marriage by many other practices is probably what led to homosexual “marriage” as a movement

That's a load of BS for many straight people having sex before they make a commitment to each other. And esp for men...who just want to have sex, period

This was perfectly recognized throughout history, which is why sexuality was controlled by moral codes

(sorry, it's not sexist, it's 'more' true for men than women I'm not judging it, I think it's fine for women to desire consensual casual sex too.)

It is more true for men, I don’t complain about that point being made.

I do disagree with the idea that women generally desire casual sex, I don’t believe that to be true at all. This was always regarded as an exploitive practice by men against women, and still is. An example would be the Canadian radio personality Gian Ghomeshi, he hooked up with an actress and engaged in a fairly extreme one night stand with her, and then afterwards she tried to engage in a relationship with him, then after being ignored for a long time tried to report him for rape, he was acquitted after showing years of emails she had sent him. Yet people are still outraged over it.

And the very prevalent use of birth control proves the second one is wrong too.

That’s a modern invention, and it’s been very damaging for society, it gives men advantages of being able to use women without fear of consequence

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It wouldnt 'seem' to argue anything. Being gay is a minority demographic. Your odd example isnt validating anything.

Not only minority, it’s fringe, and seems to occur only after a civilization has become at least agricultural, and in modern times is highly correlated with trauma as a child

 

[Lutherf]

She didn’t catfish the prince. That’s a modern phenomenon

How would it be phrased then? Bamboozled?

 

[Demon]

I don’t agree about Bambi. I think it’s important to introduce themes like death early to young children, my great grandmother grew up on a chicken farm and was skilled at butchering chickens long before she had her first period. I first butchered a chicken when I was 16 and many people these days have never done it, but I think learning about death, and it’s application to both humans and other forms of life at an early age is important.

And I think there’s been a major problem caused to society by this disconnection from the natural order as society has grown more “sanitary” over the past few decades

Being someone of a very sensitive nature, I can't agree with that. I learned about death soon enough, but that ruined Bambi for me. I can see your point, but I don't think its good for everyone. For some it should be a little later. Or it should come with a warning.

 

[Kreton]

How so?

Just strange.

 

[Lursa]

Well there was no real movement for homosexual “marriage” until the sexual revolution, it’s clear these tendencies previously existed, but were not sincerely regarded as marriage. The devaluing of marriage by many other practices is probably what led to homosexual “marriage” as a movement

??? Gays were still being beaten to death, couldnt even get jobs if they came out of the closet, were disowned, etc. And you think they didnt desire, or werent having such committed relationships anyway? There was just no safe, practical way to protest at the time. Advancements were incremental, as social change often is.

Women didnt get equal status under the law until the '20s, what changed in the '20s? Certainly nothing about women or what we needed, wanted, deserved under the law. (Yeah, I know, you dont approve of our equal status either)

And if anyone devalued marriage, it was straight people. Adultery, abuse, neglect, divorce.

This was perfectly recognized throughout history, which is why sexuality was controlled by moral codes

There's nothing immoral about being gay. It harms no one.

It is more true for men, I don’t complain about that point being made.

I do disagree with the idea that women generally desire casual sex, I don’t believe that to be true at all. This was always regarded as an exploitive practice by men against women, and still is. An example would be the Canadian radio personality Gian Ghomeshi, he hooked up with an actress and engaged in a fairly extreme one night stand with her, and then afterwards she tried to engage in a relationship with him, then after being ignored for a long time tried to report him for rape, he was acquitted after showing years of emails she had sent him. Yet people are still outraged over it.

Sex is great...why wouldnt women desire it? Some more than others, everyone is different, including among men.

That’s a modern invention, and it’s been very damaging for society, it gives men advantages of being able to use women without fear of consequence

It gives women the opportunity to enjoy sex with less risks of pregnancy, and sometimes STDs, if they use condoms.

BC is not a modern invention, women have used methods and herbs, and men have used condoms, for hundreds of years.

 

[Josie]

In your opinion, how old should a child be to watch Disney's Cinderella?

Not asking who should show it to them, just whether they should be watching it in the first place.

Reasons for this thread will be posted later.

We all know the reasons. Well, some of us, maybe.

 

[Lursa]

Not only minority, it’s fringe, and seems to occur only after a civilization has become at least agricultural, and in modern times is highly correlated with trauma as a child

Pretty much everything in that sentence is wrong. And how would we know what existed before there was agriculture and verbal and written language? Other higher mammals display homosexuality...why wouldnt Homo sapiens?

There's also evolutionary evidence that supports its purpose. (But you dont believe in evolution)

 

[Phys251]

I haven't decided what my vote is yet. I think I know where you might be going with this and the answer should be no age is appropriate for the message it sends about fantasy love. I think you're going somewhere different. However, I watched it at a young age, as did my daughter, and I don't think either of us was harmed. I loved the mice and that nothing died in that cartoon.

Bambi now, that's one that should be held off for a later age. I still won't watch the beginning, lol.

"Your mother can't be with you any more."

 

[Demon]

"Your mother can't be with you any more."

 

[mike2810]

Didn't vote in the poll.
I say let the parent decide if it is age appropriate for their kids to watch an old Disney movie.

If one is questioning when a child should watch Cinderella. Then one may be concerned with
- Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs
- Bambi
- Peter Pan
- Sleeping Beauty
- Alice in Wonderland
- Treasure Island
- 20,000 leagues under the sea
- Davey Crocket.
and many more I have forgotten.

I saw all the films I listed when I was a kid growing up in the 50's. Never was concerned about the kissing or other issues some people today may have with the films.
Didn't even occur to me to think gay/bi/hetro/binary when watching the films. They were just fun to watch.

 

[Josie]

Except the movie doesn't really show that. How exactly do you think the Prince had the opportunity to learn about Cinderalla's "moral character"? Now, we as the audience know she has a a good moral character but they don't show any real depth or conversations to them as a couple beyond them dancing to a couple songs and it's much more about a man being attracted solely by looks and a woman looking for her "prince" to save her which isn't always the best guidance.

Other versions of Cinderella such as my personal favorite, Ever After, do establish a more believable couple.

Ever After!

 

[venice_ca]

Don’t depend on a prince saving you; rely on your own intellect and determination.

Also, there’s no guarantee that a prince won’t abuse and/or exploit his romantic partner.

And I used to think that my father had a jaded view of Disney!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Pretty much everything in that sentence is wrong. And how would we know what existed before there was agriculture and verbal and written language? Other higher mammals display homosexuality...why wouldnt Homo sapiens?

I reject the notion other animals display homosexuality. Homosexuality is a political construction and not a biological one. You can say other animals engage in acts analogous to sodomy, but you cannot say they are “gay”

There's also evolutionary evidence that supports its purpose. (But you dont believe in evolution)

There’s no evolutionary reason for “homosexuality”. And the idea it’s genetic is unproven.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

??? Gays were still being beaten to death, couldnt even get jobs if they came out of the closet,

Beating people to death is bad, but maybe people who are severely disordered to the point where they push their disorder on others make bad employees.

were disowned, etc. And you think they didnt desire, or werent having such committed relationships anyway? There was just no safe, practical way to protest at the time. Advancements were incremental, as social change often is.

There is nothing wrong with two male roommates living together.

Women didnt get equal status under the law until the '20s, what changed in the '20s? Certainly nothing about women or what we needed, wanted, deserved under the law. (Yeah, I know, you dont approve of our equal status either)

And if anyone devalued marriage, it was straight people. Adultery, abuse, neglect, divorce.

Abuse and neglect in the general are perennial and unsolvable conditions, like poverty. Divorce certainly devalued marriage. Which is why no fault divorce should simply be outlawed.

There's nothing immoral about being gay. It harms no one.

Yes there is, and it is harmful to society. Opening Pandora’s box on accepting sodomy means now we have to gender transition prepubescent children if they are groomed by politically homosexual activists

Sex is great...why wouldnt women desire it? Some more than others, everyone is different, including among men.

You are now changing your argument. Your argument was women enjoy casual sex. No they don’t. If you can find one or two freaks this doesn’t disprove the argument

It gives women the opportunity to enjoy sex with less risks of pregnancy, and sometimes STDs, if they use condoms.

BC is not a modern invention, women have used methods and herbs, and men have used condoms, for hundreds of years.

Birth control as a pharmaceautical option is very new.

 

[Lursa]

I reject the notion other animals display homosexuality. Homosexuality is a political construction and not a biological one. You can say other animals engage in acts analogous to sodomy, but you cannot say they are “gay”

Who cares what you reject? I've seen little to no absorption of sciences, esp. the biological ones, demonstrated in your posts.

What you wrote re: it being a political constructed...that's one of the stupidest and most baseless statements I've read here.

It amounts to "wishful thinking" on your part and nothing more.

There’s no evolutionary reason for “homosexuality”. And the idea it’s genetic is unproven.

I never ever said it was genetic, there's no gay gene.

OTOH, I cant be bothered to waste my time explaining the evolutionary reason and theory. You wont even accept Richard Dawkins as an expert, nor do you believe in evolution, so it's a waste of my time. You are however...wrong.

 

[Lursa]

Beating people to death is bad, but maybe people who are severely disordered to the point where they push their disorder on others make bad employees.

Ah! The good ol' "He asked for it!" "The victim deserved it" arguments. Your response is sickening and

Gays dont force anything on others. Straight men however, have been physically and visually and manipulatively pushing themselves on women for...ever.

There is nothing wrong with two male roommates living together.

There isnt. Nor is there with them having a committed, intimate relationship.

Abuse and neglect in the general are perennial and unsolvable conditions, like poverty. Divorce certainly devalued marriage. Which is why no fault divorce should simply be outlawed.

And yet, 'marriage' didnt magically remove them from relationships between men and women, did it? Nope, it continues within marriage as well. And divorce didnt devalue marriage...the actions of the participants did.

Yes there is, and it is harmful to society. Opening Pandora’s box on accepting sodomy means now we have to gender transition prepubescent children if they are groomed by politically homosexual activists

Accepting that which comes naturally to others that doesnt harm themselves or others has no negatives. It only enables people to be who they are and work out their identities and relationships for themselves.

There's no 'grooming,' that's absurd. We all want kids to grow up and not be bullied, not commit suicide, not feel like they're different or bad. Well, most of us want that anyway.

You are now changing your argument. Your argument was women enjoy casual sex. No they don’t. If you can find one or two freaks this doesn’t disprove the argument

Women do enjoy casual sex. Not every single man does...you dont. It was a general statement and it's absurd, again, if you think there are plenty of women that enjoy it. Good lord, it's like you dont even live on Planet Earth. Sex is wonderful, why wouldnt we want it and enjoy it? No one says it's the same for everyone, not men or women.

Birth control as a pharmaceautical option is very new.

But the idea and the need and the use of it are not. So your point fails.

 

[Hatuey]

I find it stupid when someone judges a 1950's movie by today's viewpoints. Understanding of the era is necessary.

There are people, and products, from the 1950s around today, sir. It isnt memory of the distant past beyond our ability to comprehend and analyze.