NY Times Thinks This Kids' Movie Needs a Little More 'Kink'

The New York Times lost any credibility as a serious journalism outfit long ago, but sometimes the outlet still writes things that are so profoundly imbecilic that one can’t help but be a little stunned.

Although leftists always insist that it’s bigoted right-wingers who are engaged in a culture war, it’s actually the left themselves that is constantly upping the ante and demanding that we celebrate little kids attending drag shows and cheer for clothing designed to accommodate fetishes being sold at Target.

Proving once again that they are obsessed with dragging children into discussions about sex and sexual identity, the paper decided to take on the new Disney live adaptation of their animated hit, “The Little Mermaid.” While reviews of the movie have been mixed, it’s dominating at the box office over Memorial Day weekend. There’s one review you probably didn’t expect, however—one in which the writer argues that the children’s movie needed a little more “kink,” because that’s what’s really lacking today in kids’ entertainment apparently.

“Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink — they’re missing,” writes the reviewer.

Disney's live-action remake of "The Little Mermaid," with Halle Bailey starring as Ariel and a diverse cast, "reeks of obligation and noble intentions," Wesley Morris writes.

"Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink — they’re missing." https://t.co/GRE3yyIIfz

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 27, 2023

Merriam Webster has several definitions for “kink”—for example, you could get one in your neck, but I don’t think that’s what the writer meant. The definition that I think most people would be familiar with in this context would be, an “unconventional sexual taste or behavior.” If you’re feeling charitable toward the NY Times, which they certainly don’t deserve, you could assert that the outlet meant “a clever unusual way of doing something,” but that doesn’t really pass the smell test because there are plenty of other words besides one with a double entendre they could have used.

A writer at another outlet made that argument—that the reviewer meant the “clever” definition—but I find it wholly unpersuasive. In this day and age, where the sexualization of children is a source of constant discussion and confrontation, you’d have to be an idiot to throw in the word “kink” unintentionally.

We know the NY Times, and we know the writer chose this word on purpose.

Reaction was swift:

‘Kink’? In a film made for *children*? pic.twitter.com/HdGx7f0CTv

— La Reina🇺🇸Creole🇩🇴🇯🇲🇵🇷🇹🇹🇨🇺🇭🇹🇲🇽🇨🇴 (@LaReinaCreole) May 28, 2023

This user asks the obvious question:

Ummm…kink? Why does that belong in a children’s movie exactly?

— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) May 28, 2023

The Times then goes on to chastise the movie for reeking of “obligation and noble intentions”:

The new, live-action “The Little Mermaid” is everything nobody should want in a movie: dutiful and defensive, yet desperate for approval. It reeks of obligation and noble intentions. Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink — they’re missing. The movie is saying, “We tried!” Tried not to offend, appall, challenge, imagine. A crab croons, a gull raps, a sea witch swells to Stay Puft proportions: This is not supposed to be a serious event. But it feels made in anticipation of being taken too seriously. Now, you can’t even laugh at it.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of film outlets like the Times have been demanding—and now they’re complaining about it? The Times and other leftist rags have been pushing for movies to be obsessed with diversity, sexual identity politics, and overall wokeness, and now that they’ve gotten exactly what they want they’re whining?

One of the points we’ve made is that by agonizing over these issues instead of focusing on fine storytelling, you will end up with soulless entertainment—which is exactly what a lot of Disney and Netflix productions have become.

Does it look like this movie needs kink?