They're above the AOA of many (most?) here.

When it was first released, most here also said that, apart from their ages, their characters' randy attitude was also off putting. Most here like girls to be sexually assertive; but not attention-seeking-ly sexual. Not PornHub worthy like sexual.

Combining both, most here defended it on pure free speech grounds but criticized the plot, performance and the mainstream description as a pedo targeting film.

Yet, the fact that most of the mainstream described it as a pedo film made Netflix an easy target. How KP laws, while pretty lax if the First was followed by the letter, have been made broader and stronger through both legislation and court rulings; how to defend it openly even on free speech grounds (and not on *zomg drools* grounds) made people suspect of being pedos (something we have witnessed even about media way less sexual than Cuties and even in media which isn't live action such as fictional drawings or written [footnote]); and how Netflix itself as a company thrives on controversy and especially on sexually motivated controversy (such as Benedetta about lesbianism in Catholic convents) are all factors which made its defense harder. Being shot in France rather than America also makes it easier for prosecutors and public opinion in the US to just point at cultural differences (which IMHO are exaggerated but that isn't the topic).

For all the fragments I've watched; my opinion goes from "meh not interested" same as yours, to "obviously they wanted publicity from controversy, and giving them that is counterproductive to organic sexual expression by girls". If anything I'm more upset at Netflix for giving antis an important anti First Amendment case. Basically as hierophant says, because they calculate that they can win and then the controversy gives them more money.




[Footnote: For reasons unrelated to GC I've come to access anti slanted media. Some of the stories in it are sexier than anything that would pass Rule 1 here. Oh the hypocrisy!]