Amid all the fomenting anger and angst surrounding Netflix's controversial decision to air blatant objectification of underage girls in a curious, supposed effort to offer commentary on the concerning reality of objectifying underage girls, something is being missed. I can't help but think it's intentional.
While cultural commentators of every stripe and color are postulating and pontificating on whether Netflix should be boycotted, banned, or buoyed for their decision, maybe more time should be spent talking about the reality that there were many who, for quite some time, have been predicting and anticipating this kind of deplorable development.
Social conservatives, specifically Christians operating from a Biblical worldview, have correctly identified every step down this ladder to moral oblivion even as they've been called alarmists, doomsayers, and purveyors of slippery-slope nonsense.
The truth is, of course, that once you uproot moral stakes established by an objective authority in order to allow certain forms of sexual permissiveness to fly under the banner of virtue, you can't arbitrarily throw them back down into the ground to deny other forms that same privilege.
If the wisdom of Ellen – "We need to learn to love people for who they are, and we need to let them love who they want to love" – has become the manmade gospel that we have substituted for God's moral order, we have to acknowledge the innumerable sexual expressions that will fold themselves under that umbrella of "them."
"But sexually harming children is different!" we've heard repeatedly. "It's one thing to promote or embrace consensual adult relationships," the revolutionaries have said and too many otherwise rational minds have been content to solace themselves by believing. After all, even those including participants of the same sex or incorporating more than just two parties involve adults who are making their own choices. But adults preying upon children who are too young to make cognitive decisions that first considers all the potential consequences is something entirely different.
Even those self-proclaimed MAPs (minor-attracted persons) must deny their sexual appetites, must live in contradiction of their sexual identity, because embracing it would endanger children incapable of informed consent. Right?
Before you answer that, consider the backdoor coup that sexual revolutionaries have managed to pull off in recent years. In the name of tolerance and inclusiveness, authorities throughout the country have begun relenting to the claim that elementary-aged children can consent to so-called "gender-transitions." That is, children younger than those depicted in Cuties are being deemed cognitively and neurologically well-developed enough to give consent to life-altering, irreversible surgeries and chemical treatments.
I suppose suggesting that such a conclusion mortally wounds the supposition that those same children are incapable of sexual consent would just be more "slippery slope" speculation, right?
No one – not even innocent children – are safe from the consequences of man's slavery to sin.
God designed sex and human sexuality. And because He loves us, He gave us specific boundaries for what it is and how it was to be enjoyed, warning us that if and when we took it out of the confines of a married, man/woman relationship, we would change its character and distort its nature.
What we're witnessing in the current upheaval over Cuties is merely the latest demonstration of what reflexively happens every time God's providential care for us is spurned by man's rebellious heart.