I’ve got a sinking feeling that if this was about a female character, Megan’s take would be completely different.

I am completely shocked that Jezebel would take this tone just because the initial complaint comes from a conservative organization. This storyline is gross and downright dangerous to be teaching small children. As someone who HAS a small child, they absolutely DO emulate the actions of anthropomorphized animals in…

A Big Fuck Off To The Writer Of Jezebel

This article is a really bad-no, dangerous-take written by someone who opted not to actually put any effort into learning how grooming works. Shame on Jezebel.

Exactly. Originally Big Bird was the only one who could see Snuffleupagus and none of the adults believed Big Bird when he told them. Then the writers realized the conclusions the child viewers may draw from it and changed tack. The fact that the character isn’t human is irrelevant. Sesame Street understood they were…

Seemingly? This hot take is an extremely bad take. Don’t dismiss facts just because you don’t care for the politics of the source.

I do not believe a child is misguided enough to interpret what is happening to a dog that talks as something that could possibly be happening to them.

I’m normally all for the sarcasm here but this article upsets me and I didn’t even have these experiences. I’m sorry that you had to experience it and that you had to come to a site that is generally pretty good and see this steaming pile of a hot take.

“I do not believe a child is misguided enough to interpret what is happening to a dog that talks as something that could possibly be happening to them”

I’m surprised to find out Rich didn’t write this article.

Exactly. The argument that this is a dog and this happens at dog shows is a moot point when you make the dog talk. This movie isn’t supposed to be accurate, it’s supposed to be a story people (kids in this case) are supposed to connect with.

Yup exactly. If kids didn’t relate to animals/animated objects then these movies wouldn’t be so successful. Hell, look at a movie like Zootopia. They’re animals but basically might as well not be with the very mature human and societal themes being explored. Glad to see most people pointing out the tone of this…

“He’s in charge so it’s ok” is like the number one most dangerous messages kids encounter these days. Also, a kid isn’t going to know why the judge is doing it to assign it any context. I don’t even know why they do it and I’m fucking 30!

The way these scenes were described were almost exactly what I went through as a kid by my abuser. “this is normal, just relax. This is how it’s done, you’re fine, think of something else.”

THANK YOU! I thought I was going crazy for a second reading this article.

I was expecting to see an article here about this, but this is not the tone I imagined.
How do you not see the problem with teaching kids that “it’s ok if someone wants to touch your genitals, just go to your happy place”?

I’m really surprised that you took such a neutral stance in this report. As a survivor of incestual sexual abuse, I can say there was a TON of ambiguity in my child brain about what was right and what wasn’t, especially as I suffered at the hands of a trusted family member. This is absolutely grooming and is SO SO…

Kids, especially very young ones, emulate what they see in movies. They identify with Lightning McQueen, who’s a car for crying out loud, and want to be brave like Nemo. It’s not a particularly funny joke (as in, it’s dumb and unoriginal) and I can absolutely see a kid who’s experienced some form of sexual abuse…

“I do not believe a child is misguided enough to interpret what is happening to a dog that talks as something that could possibly be happening to them.”

Seems like a valid edit to make. Kid’s are going to relate to the protagonist, dog or otherwise because that’s how imaginiation works. Lets not give them a conflicting message about people touching their genitals.

Especially with the current events in women’s gymnastics.