>>4828569>>4828592Got it,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrjvifKXQy4Shirley Temple was in a film called Baby Burlesque in the 1930s with a bunch of other little kids. Throughout her near infancy she was used to portray sexualised infants across many hollywood productions. Not sure if she was the only one. The only thing that amazes me is that I don't think Jews were directly involved, with Shirley at least.
Bear in mind that this was at a time when Hollywood was degenerate for letting women show their necklines and shoulders. It was subtle but repeated, definite, and deliberate.
So yes, the book is degenerate, but it was lampooning degeneracy, holding up the magnifying glass to it, if you will. I watched the 1997 film years ago, and nothing about it puts any of this across. At times it tries to make the male protagonist seem like a kind of sympathetic victim.
