U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
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 11-01-2013, 06:27 PM
Location: Chicago
5,412 posts, read 8,279,710 times
Reputation: 6347


Originally Posted by Sugah Ray View Post
Are the definition of those words the reason why people have double standands when judging different people for the same acts or crimes? Or is it the celebrity status what is causing the double standard? Do you understand the argument of this debate? Here's the OT
Yes, but first the debate required that we properly define what a pedophile is. My previous post differentiated pedophiles from hebephilias and included dictionary and DSM definitions. I do not believe this distinction was presented in other posts, and I believe that proper definition is important for the argument.

Your post declared: 1) rape is "questionable behavior" and 2) a 13 year old could "participate willingly" in having a sexual relationship with a 40 year old. Though I disagree with your 2 assertions, it is off topic as we are debating pedophiles (not hebephilia or pubescent 13 y.o. mentally/physically incapable of giving consent).

So, to address your above ?'s -

I believe there is a problem with the diagnostic definitions of a "pedophile" vs "hebephilia." My previous linked Wiki page covers some of this debate. I believe both pedophile and hebephilia should be classified as disorders. However, I do not believe the terminology is causing the double standard, just confusion in this thread which I attempted to clarify.

I believe the reason that celebrities may be judged differently for pedophile acts is:

- They have money and power. This is the same reason that a huckster who steal millions can disappear into the luxurious Swiss countryside, while a kid who steals an old motorcycle can rot in prison. Their money and power gives them amazing connections, excellent PR and legal defense, bribery/kickback opportunities, and a bevy of people willing to lie for them (including victims and witnesses).

- Their PR machines are able to spin believable tales of their innocence (all they need is the air time and a few crocodile tears). The masses are gullible with a short memory. The masses especially want to forgive people who are contrite. Celebrities have large, public platforms for showing they are contrite (whether they mean it or not) and they tend to be good actors.

- Their PR machines are good at using euphemisms to soften the abhorrent behavior. This is where your post comes in.... It is all in the semantics. Their rapes are described as "questionable behavior" and a pop star who punches his girlfriend in the face is described as "a very passionate person." Words like "deviant" and "abuser" are avoided by media (it's cumbersome to constantly say "alleged"), as these stars have million dollar legal teams ready to pounce if anything threatens their market share.

- People have the ability to separate a celebrity's deviant personal life from their work of art, their great action as a leader, or their talented production. This is the same reason artwork, books/stories from convicted criminals, like OJ, sell.

- People do not follow the money path to make a moral judgment on whether they should support a particular "talent." I am guilty of this myself, I just don't always think about the possible sources of something before I consume it (whether clothing from child labor, electronics from a sweatshop, or a movie/song from a pedophile). The OP's post reminded me to consider this more often when I make purchase decisions.

Last edited by GoCUBS1; 11-01-2013 at 06:46 PM..

Old 11-10-2013, 10:00 PM
Location: Salinas, CA
13,432 posts, read 4,415,155 times
Reputation: 6939
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
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.
It is up to each individual whether they want to judge performers/artists/writers by their work or by their character or a combination of both. One could state that the OP is making a judgement that we have to decide based character. At the same time, you are being equally judgemental saying we can't consider character and should only judge based on the quality of their art or work.

I will say that if their are two artists of equal talent and one is seriously flawed or had a criminal past I would lean toward supporting the decent one.

Artists and actors that cross over into politics should be held to a higher standard, too. When Arnold Schwarzenegger had an affair with that maid and took his eye off the ball of leadership for California, I simply lost all respect. That is a disgrace. He was not doing a real good job before the affair either, but that totally sunk him. I have not seen his new movie and do not plan to do so. When you assume a leadership role, there are higher standards.
Old 11-23-2013, 03:23 AM
1,882 posts, read 2,723,006 times
Reputation: 3871
Originally Posted by mrstewart View Post
Thank you for posting this! I was just reading the news reports about Roman Polanski's court hearing and the transcripts from the Grand Jury hearing in the 70's...

This man is a tolerated pedophile because I think on some level since because he is/was perceived as being so avant garde that many people just shrugged their shoulders and wrote it off as a misled artist, wounded man because of Sharon Tate, and Americans have short memories about celebrities misdeeds. Pretty sad.

Take it out of the Hollywood arena and you have folks like Marion Barry, Louis Farrakhan Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, Martha Stewart and obviously several more who are criminals (not implying they are pedophiles) but we forgive them their "indiscretions" for some reason.
sorry, but i am going to defend polanski here. this was someone who was practically pushed into the scenario by the MOTHER of the girl he had sex with, and even the girl today says that the fallout from the case was far more damaging to her life than the sex act had been, that she was not abused, or cajoled.

polanski had a rep for being a ladies' man, but not a pedophile. it certainly put a black mark on his record and i am not saying that what he did was sensible, or legal in the eyes of the law. but i don't agree that that makes him a pedophile. that is a very strong term and implies some preference that the evidence doesn't show he had. he was not even aware of the girl's age at the time.

r kelly, on the other hand, is KNOWN for this sort of thing and pursues young women. anthony kiedis too. i live in LA and i know some people who know or knew him, and said that every time they met him he would be with some chick he didn't look older than 15. pretty gross, and polanski didn't have a history of that. he would pretty much screw anything that moved, but he didn't have that preference for little girls or anything like that.

i think its important when discussing pedophilia not to cheapen it by lumping all men who like girls on the younger side as pedophiles. in fact, pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent boys and girls, or newly pubescent. i know its a gray area, but pedophilia is so disgusting and abhorrent that its a heavy charge to lay on someone, and i think being more careful is important.

i DO think that celebrities (look at the recent allegations against Jimmy Saville, or all the stuff that Billy Preston did) are given something of a pass, but having said that, R Kelly is a joke to pretty much anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Pop. i mean, have you ever seen the Chappelle skit? ever seen "trapped in a closet"? r kelly is an idiot that people are entertained by, but the joke is on him. nobody thinks that guy is straight up. he will forever be the "pss on you" guy. and that makes me happy, because he is a creep. polanski made a stupid mistake and yes, it does matter to me that the guy lost his whole family in Nazi Germany and his pregnant wife at the hands of mutants. if the guy were a true pedophile, i'd say, lock him up and throw away the key no matter what tragedies life handed him. but i just dont' think he is and he has gone down as that and i don't believe that is fair, or that the facts reflect that.
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