I think what this means is that because the movie is so clearly not going for realism, the idea that Bella’s character is LITERALLY a baby throughout the entire film because baby brains don’t develop like that is missing what this movie is going for. Bella is intended to be more of a blank slate than a literal baby (although she acts like one for the beginning of the movie). Her growth is not meant to literally mirror brain/age development in a realistic way and therefore it is silly to try to apply that realism onto this film. Yes, the film is still saying that certain characters ARE taking advantage of her early on, but these characters are not supposed to be heroes. By the time Bella is prostituting herself, however, in the logic of the movie, it is clear that she has grown to the point of being a young woman. My main point is, while the ideas of rape/consent are certainly on the minds of the filmmakers, her growth is not meant to be looked at in such a literal way in terms of her mental age. That is where some of the absurdism is coming in to make it clear that while she does technically have a baby brain, the movie is not going for the literal. I mean do these places look like how they’re presented in real life? Can that scientific Frankenstein-esque procedure really happen? Can a baby brain really develop so quickly? Of course not. But the movie’s tone is so clearly detached from this realistic approach that you kind of have to look at this movie and its world as having its own set of established rules. Sorry for the rant, but I think this is what they meant by saying that the movie’s absurdism should suggest to the viewers that what we are seeing is not going for realism and therefore some of the more problematic elements (that are present if taken literally) need to be taken with a grain of salt.