U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-27-2009, 01:14 PM
 
1,949 posts, read 4,639,873 times
Reputation: 907

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."

Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.

I think about all of the celebrities that have lined up to work with Woody Allen after the incident with his step-daughter and accusations regarding molesting his other children. I also think about how many songs by R Kelly have topped the charts since the long line of accusations about him having sex with one underaged girl after another have been known.

Would we give these men a free pass if they were mechanics, bus drivers or school teachers? Why do we tolerate (or even celebrate) them?
we dont. we tolerate wealthy pedophiles. we also tolerate wealthy thieves and wealthy murderers and just about any other type of criminal so long as they're wealthy. most of our laws do not apply to the very wealthy. they are made to protect the wealthy from us and from ever becoming one of us. that is why legislation to bail out the banks was shoved down our throats with the media touting that it is for our own good. it wasnt. that's why there was no oversight and was never going to be. that's why the banks didnt lend any of that money to everyday people and were never supposed to. the banks did what they were supposed to do. and the money was used for what it was always intended for. to protect the very wealthy from becoming like us.

i say that to say this: the FDIC insures up to 100 K of your money; 200 K for a couple. if youre middle class or even upper middle class, you would be lucky to have 100 K in the bank. so the banks losing money is not a middle class problem, it is a millionare problem. and our Congress is inhabited almost exclusively by millionares. they are influenced almost exclusively by millionares and billionares. so of course they were going to reach a bi-partisan dicision to use our tax dollars to insure that the millionares and those who mis-managed their money, stayed millionares.

 
Old 01-27-2009, 02:48 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."

Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.
Louis Ferdinand Celine was a Nazi collaborator and a rabid anti-Semite as well as a brilliant writer. Charles Baudelaire led a profoundly dissolute lifestyle, but he also wrote exquisite poetry. Ludwig van Beethoven was an awful, nasty human being, but also one of the greatest artistic figures of the Western Civilization. Edgar Alan Poe was an alcoholic who slept with his severely underage cousin, yet he was also a very gifted writer. O.Henry was a racist and an embezzler, but he is one of the gems of American literature. Conversely, I believe -- and I know I'm in the tiny minority here -- that Alexander Solzhnenitsyn was a mediocre writer, even though it was good of him to oppose the Soviet totalitarian state. And that's just off the top of my head. Artists in general have always had at least questionable morals. Nice people who respect boundaries typically lack creativity, to say nothing of genius -- with William Shakespeare being the only exception I can think of. But, you know, one exception does not trump the rule.

And that's why an artist -- as an artist -- should be judged by the quality of his art, not the content of his character. Whether or not he is a good person should not affect your opinion of his work. Personally, I think Woody Allen is overrated, and I wasn't crazy about VCB, but his conduct as a person has nothing to do with how good, or not good, the film is. You can have an objective opinion about a work of art without "tolerating" pedophilia.
 
Old 01-27-2009, 03:10 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,937,867 times
Reputation: 3848
As an aside, being attracted to a teenager and actually having sex with a teenager are two very different things. No one prosecutes men for being attracted to underage girls, so Alex and "killer", quit the hysterics. Whatever the case may be with "infantile sexuality", having sex with a 13 year-old is illegal, and I presume that men, being rational human beings, are more than capable of controlling their urges. It is not inhumane to require people to pick partners who are at least 18, and what is most scandalous about your statements, is your unshakable belief that a man should be able to indulge his "urges", whatever they may be, just because he has them. The same rationale you are employing can just as easily be used to justify forcible rape.

Statutory rape laws exist not because 13 year-olds are sexually immature, but because they are mentally incapable of rational consent; because "consent" can -- and in the good old days was -- easily be extracted from them through deception, intimidation or abuse of authority. It is very easy to take advantage of a child without inflicting actual violence. For these reasons -- and to a great extent to benefit men by eliminating the uncertainty implicit in approaching this issue in an ad hoc manner -- bright-line rules were enacted. Don't have sex with someone who is under 18. Is it really too much to ask?

I am also floored by Alex's discussion of other cultures that have lower ages of consent. Alex, in those countries, as a rule, women can't consent, period. They are property. Saying that a girl in such a society can "consent" to sex when she is 9 is like saying that a mare on a farm can "consent" to sex when she is three. In the case of horses, it's the owner who decides when its mare will mate, with the mare having no say in the matter whatsoever, and in the case of women from those societies, it's their male owners who make the analogous decision. It's their male guardians who "consent" for them -- and 9-year-old girls are married off in Muslim societies not because 9-year-olds are "sexual" but to take advantage of even their first ovulation cycles. I am happy to live in a society that does not treat women as breeding cows, but as human beings -- and hence, the standards to which you refer have no relevance here whatsoever.
 
Old 01-27-2009, 11:57 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,527 posts, read 29,228,109 times
Reputation: 21263
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."

Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.

I think about all of the celebrities that have lined up to work with Woody Allen after the incident with his step-daughter and accusations regarding molesting his other children. I also think about how many songs by R Kelly have topped the charts since the long line of accusations about him having sex with one underaged girl after another have been known.

Would we give these men a free pass if they were mechanics, bus drivers or school teachers? Why do we tolerate (or even celebrate) them?
I don't know anything about R. Kelly, but personally, I think that Woody and Roman got a bum rap.

I never saw any proof that Woody was molesting his other children. His ex-wife was just bitter and angry about his relationship with her adopted daughter (who was no relation to him whatsoever) and I believe that she made up lies just to try to make his life miserable. If there is any evidence out there to the contrary, I would like to know about it.

Many men are labeled pedophiles for life when they do not deserve the title. Michael Jackson - yeah, ok. But Woody is entitled to live his life in peace. He is happy his wife is happy, leave him alone already.

20yrsinBranson
 
Old 01-28-2009, 12:26 AM
 
192 posts, read 482,595 times
Reputation: 127
I think the term pedophilia is being thrown around a little too loosely. Attraction to a pre-pubescent child and attraction to a 14 year old sexually developed child are two totally different things. Acting on either of these impulses is illegal, and rightly so. But attraction to the 14-yo could fall within the range of "normal" sexual desire. If Woody Allen was hooking up with his 16-yo stepchild, it's creepy, but it doesn't make him a pedophile. And it has no impact on the quality of his films.

It's not like there is some sex switch that magically turns on on a person's 18th birthday that changes an innocent child into a sexually mature adult. This is a gradual process, different for everyone. The age number is completely arbitrary.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 03:24 PM
 
898 posts, read 1,242,134 times
Reputation: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
A friend asked me if I wanted to go see the movie "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" to which I replied "Isn't that a Woody Allen film?" Her response, "Yeah, I know, but he's just soooo talented."

Why do we as a society tolerate pedophiles, just beacaue they are talented? The names that immediately come to mind are: Woody Allen, R Kelly, Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski.

I think about all of the celebrities that have lined up to work with Woody Allen after the incident with his step-daughter and accusations regarding molesting his other children. I also think about how many songs by R Kelly have topped the charts since the long line of accusations about him having sex with one underaged girl after another have been known.

Would we give these men a free pass if they were mechanics, bus drivers or school teachers? Why do we tolerate (or even celebrate) them?
The answer is right there in your post. They're celebrities (which means to celebrate) and that's why they get away with, sometimes literaly, murder. It's always been that way. Da Vinci was a convicted pedofile in his day as well. All he had to do was stay away from the town where he was convicted and he lived to his 80s without concern. Sounds just like Polansky's case, right? The moment people stop patronizing these people, the moment the will be treated more equally.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason OJ was despised was because he is a black man who allegedly killed a white woman. But that's a whole other can of worms.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 04:38 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,024,297 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
a 15 or 16 year old is still a child thus statutory rape
"Pedophilia" is a Greek term that means "attraction toward children." "Child" has traditionally meant "pre-pubertal." The term you are looking for is "ephebophilia," another Greek word meaning "attraction to adolescents." That term more precisely expresses the notion of attraction to someone who is post-pubertal but under the age of consent.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 04:46 PM
 
Location: La lune et les étoiles
17,413 posts, read 18,272,289 times
Reputation: 18588
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
"Pedophilia" is a Greek term that means "attraction toward children." "Child" has traditionally meant "pre-pubertal." The term you are looking for is "ephebophilia," another Greek word meaning "attraction to adolescents." That term more precisely expresses the notion of attraction to someone who is post-pubertal but under the age of consent.
Any way that you want to slice it, a 50 year old man having sexual relations with a 14, 15 or 16 year old girl (or boy) is just wrong.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 05:12 PM
 
1,501 posts, read 5,095,251 times
Reputation: 1115
I think because the WMW (Worthless Mainstream Wonders) shove them down our throats and glorify them by giving them even more attention. So too many people just "let it go already" and forget it.

I don't watch him, but notice that every controversial moron is on the Larry King Show; that stupid "View" show; and others like them, promos. I downgraded my AOL version to get rid of that "Welcome" screen in my face with all that "News" garbage. (Thank God I had an old disc!!)

Our local papers like to make bigger celebrities out of them too simply because people eat up the scandals. I've been hearing about Jose Canseco and Danny Bonaduce's stupid "Boxing Match" every night -- on the "alleged" NEWS! (My family has the set on in the main room, wish I could MUTE it all!) Did that thing happen already or what?

As long as they can (ALL) make money off the scandal-starving public, they won't go away anytime soon or be banished.

These people have just about replaced real old-school News Journalism anyway, so afraid we're stuck with them.

If you REALLY want to get blacklisted in showbusiness, be a flaming Republican. Thats a much worse taboo, apparently.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Bay Area, CA
28,166 posts, read 43,444,026 times
Reputation: 18544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
I was going by memory so your Google searching would be just as good as mine, except I don't have the time for it.
In the time it took you to write that LONG response, you could have done 20 Google searches. But as a librarian, I have to say that Google isn't necessarily going to produce anything of value... might want to try some newspaper databases, if you actually want to prove your point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top