Sure seems that way.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems way more prolific in Hollywood than it does elsewhere.
Or maybe it's just me, and literally everyone else is doing it.
Certainly the rich and powerful all seem to have some skeletons in their closets..
Perhaps that's why I'm not rich and powerful. I'm not prepared to be part of their sick and twisted network.
Who knows?
I'd love to tell you, but if I do, I might lose access to the Illuminati Day Care Center and Brothel.
shareand be banned from the Bohemian Grove πππ
shareInteresting, I hadn't heard of that one.
And then this guy:
One such documented example was former president, Richard Nixon's comments from a May 13, 1971 recording that: "The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time β it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine."share
πππππ
shareLike I say in another thread, I detest conspiracy theories.
Personally, I'm sceptical as to whether the abuse is as widespread as it appears to be. But in terms of optics, the sad truth is that it does seem that the entire industry is dominated by sex scandals and sexual predators.
Even many of the supposedly 'innocent' ones strike me as sleazy, and not a bit misogynist.
Here's my honest view that I have held for a long time: Like drug abuse, sexual paraphilias are dark sides of the open-mindedness necessary to be a creative type.
Just like how creative types tend to be more eccentric; These are all examples of outside-the-box thinking and people who decide (for better or worse!) their own judgments, despite what society may think.
And to be a Devil's Advocate, there is plenty of historical precedent for this paraphilia. Relations between youths and adults have been common and damn near accepted in cultures.
I cant even say "past cultures," because I believe there is at least still one, more like an indigenous people somewhere, who still has man-boy relations as an element kf their cultural upbringing, like a rite of passage.
Then there is Spain, or was, with a low age of consent, where its not unheard of for like a 14 year old girl to live with her 30 year old boyfriend.
You raise some fascinating points.
It reminds me of a Camilla Paglia quote (not one I necessarily agree with, I must stress): "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."
I don't necessarily agree with the gender implication of what Paglia is saying here, but where I do think she may have a point, is in associating genius with pathological sickness. Of course, she wasn't saying that Mozart was a serial killer, or that Jack the Ripper was a musical virtuoso, but the implication seemed to be that there is a very thin line between genius and madness, which isn't too far from what you're saying about how eccentric creatives tend to play by different rules to the rest of us.
Maybe it explains why I am such a mediocrity. I tend to play by the rules. I have a rigid respect for morality and ethnics, and a sense of justice, and law and order(which is not admittedly the same thing). I think I am still independent-minded enough to question individual laws and authority in general, but I do have a staunch sense of right and wrong.
I love that quote, thanks for posting it. It is already one of my favorites, and I'm going to have to read a bit more from her, especially if that quote is sourced from something bigger.
Also it sounds like you need to decide to get out there and raise some hell, get those creative juices flowing!
A good crime writer, for one narrow example, has to be both willing and able to think in a criminal mindset in order to come up with convincing criminal characters, and their intents/machinations. This would easily make one suspicious of the thoughts inside the head of one who writes twisted, or eerily realistic, crime fiction.
....And that leads to the plot of Basic Instinct! Its also an example of why I dont like the mindset of people obsessed with "criminal fiction," (not general crime fiction), usually starting with Scarface and basically loving most or all entries that fit: Goodfellas, Godfather, all mob stories practically, Funny Games.... that kind of stuff.
When someone is obsessed with that kind of material, it just makes me go HMMMM
She's not saying there's a fine line between the two. She's saying there's a gigantic bell curve between the two.
Men are highly stratified across the bell curve, for any given trait. Females are all bunched up in the middle. It's called "variance". The point is that feminists like to argue that all the people at the top are men so it must be sexism. Wrong. It's biology. They're just too privileged to notice the bottom is equally lacking in women. This is considered mainstream science, but so was the idea of two genders. They're always trying to rehash ideas about "blank slate" to upend it. Camilla is old school.
The point is that feminists like to argue that all the people at the top are men so it must be sexism.
Feminists often claim there are no gender differences.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Yes, you're right. That is what Paglia was saying. That men tend to exist on the extremes whereas women are less likely to either be geniuses or psychopaths, but exist somewhere in the middle. But I think the implication is that there are genetic similarities between geniuses and psychopaths that explains why both types of people are more likely to be men (after all, as evil as serial killers are, their actions require a certain meticulousness and conviction, akin to that one might find in a creative or academic genius).
For what it's worth, I'm neither agreeing with nor disputing Paglia's theory, although I do think it's an intriguing if potentially problematic one.
I would also add that I'd much prefer to see a world in which most, if not all of us, were somewhere in the middle of the bell curve (i.e. neither geniuses nor psychopaths) than one in which the existence of geniuses was contingent on the existence of psychopaths. But then again, I'm an egalitarian, a social democrat and an anti-elitist, so of course I would hold that position. I also despise Objectivism and pure individualism that disregards any responsibility to the community at large.
No. There are many talented women in the industry.
shareAh, so only women can be good. Only men are naturally evil. Interesting bit of gender supremacy there, but not really in keeping with notions of equality.
sharec'mon, it is what it is. Just look at the numbers.
shareThe numbers are 99% of the child abuse is homosexual despite homosexuals being a tiny minority of the population. You're digging yourself into a hole.
shareWell there you go posting a blatant lie, coming from your bias and hatred, with no evidence or link to support it, proving once again what a bottom-of-the-barrel troll you are.
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
You're probably the worst thing about this site, Thrillhouse, and I believe that is your goal.
I read that entire link and the only thing it disputed is that it's not homosexuals, it's "men who have sex with men". Are you kidding? Okay so you're defending homosexuals... by blaming bisexuals? Specifically blaming them for homosexual acts???
You're cavalier about laying blame for sex abuse squarely on men. It doesn't even occur to you how sexist that is. But when you realize it's homosexual men, oh boy! Now it's vile bigoted homophobic! Your tune changes, you whiny little hall monitor.
If you read the entire study I believe the point is that notions of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality don't tend to apply to the majority of people who abuse/molest children. If they're paedophiles, they're attracted to children, not adult women or men, in which case they can't really be categorised as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, and if they're simply sexual predators taking advantage of a child's vulnerability, as many priests in the Catholic Church have done, primarily with young boys in their care/confidence, it's once again not really a case of heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, but simply a case of convenience and the willingness to sexually exploit a vulnerable individual, irrespective of gender.
shareI have set a clear boundary with you. Twice. Do not respond to my posts.
Do not engage with me in any way.
What do we call someone who does not respect others personal boundaries?
A predator. You are a predator.
How am I supposed to keep track of other people's personal hangups? That is not how a discussion board works. Other people besides you see the discussion. You can ignore, if you want to be ignorant.
shareNo, Laura Grace
Tossing extreme words around like 'predator' is a symptom of new-age irresponsibility, especially among young females.
You do not set boundaries in a public forum and order people whom to reply to.
If you were pampered (even your name reeks of that), it's going to be a bumpy road for you in the real world.
So, I'll put it to you again: men are bad and women are good?
Isn't this conceit a form of gender supremacy? And can you see why wholly innocent and non-violent men may resent such a stigma, in the same way any other demographic would resent such generalisations?
in the arena of child abuse, rape, sexual misconduct, short answer; yes, women good/men bad.
do i understand the frustration of the innocent? yes again.
It is not conceit or supremacy, it is survival.
But you see how offensive it would be to generalise about any other group than men, right? If we were generalising about Muslims or POC with respect to certain acts, I suspect you'd frown upon it, right?
So can you see why some people may resent men being stigmatised that way?
And before you say it, 'male privilege' doesn't come into it. I don't deny the existence of male privilege. I accept it exists. But I also acknowledge human nature. And any group, regardless of its size, regardless of its standing in society, is going to feel stigmatised when one says 'x is more likely to be violent etcetera'.
The only group I don't have any sympathy for, when it comes to generalisations, is the super-rich, firstly because socioeconomic privilege is the most significant determinant of opportunity and life chances and so it really is an unassailable form of privilege (whereas male privilege and white privilege is arguably subject to various caveats - for example, is the wealthy daughter of a black African head of state less privileged that a homeless white kid surviving by turning to male prostitution?), and secondly because wealth, unlike gender, race and sexuality, is an identity one has control over (if you're born rich, you can surrender your privilege by giving all your wealth to charity, but no-one can really change their race or sexuality, and one can only change their gender with great difficulty, and not without undergoing further stigma).
But you see how offensive it would be to generalise about any other group than men, right? If we were generalising about Muslims or POC with respect to certain acts, I suspect you'd frown upon it, right?
I'm saying all rapists are men.In the UK that is true simply because as framed by the law only men can be deemed to have committed rape via penetration by penis (penetration via an object, which a woman can commit, is deemed as 'assault by penetration'), however you know as well as I do that women can, and have, forced their bodies onto men without their consent. And in US law, I do know that a woman can be found guilty of 'statutory rape'.
if the playing field were different, yeah.
Until women are as physically strong as men, this is the situation.
Remember, rape isn't all about the physical penetration, but of domination violence and control.
If women were as strong as men, it would be the end of rape. Masses of women would not be running around dominating, violating and controlling other people.
How do you know that?
I've had women sexually assault me. Admittedly, their actions were reckless rather than intentional; they weren't trying to humiliate or control me, but they were nevertheless taking advantage of me contrary to whether I'd provided them with any consent.
You seem to be suggesting that women are innately nicer people than men, and the question of rape has nothing to do with physical strength or anatomy, but a case of men just being shits in comparison to women.
Once again, I think this is a very problematic conceit, and if I were to suggest men were superior to women in any way I'd be, rightly, condemned.
Like I keep saying, we need to end this division, because the more one side asserts their 'superiority', the more the other side will feel compelled to counter-assert their own 'superiority'. It's a war no-one can, or indeed should, win.
"but not really in keeping with notions of equality."
So you're saying we need more female Rapists and child abusers?
How do you infer that from my post?
sharefck man, this place is nuts. You enjoy this?
shareEnjoy what?
I'm just trying to be fair and rational.
I think we all, as a society need to start healing the various divides. We can't ever do that if we continue to keep drawing dividing lines and demonising anyone who doesn't fit into our own demographic.
i'm getting hate mail.
shareThat's disgusting.
I'm sorry.
If I see it, I'll call it out.
I do sense some misogyny towards you with respect to some of your encounters here, and that is unacceptable.
However, the name-calling about you being 'prissy' and 'pampered' although not nice and not something I particularly approve of, is just par of the course when you engage in arguments online. I've been called names, and sure, I don't like it. I prefer civil discourse. But I don't want to see anyone's right to express themselves clamped down upon, unless they engage in racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic hate speech, or they threaten or evoke violence and violent language towards another poster.
Still, if a poster is constantly harassing you, you do have the option to put them on 'ignore'.
We would probably all be chocked if we knew how many people are pedophiles just in general.
shareTo be honest you just come across as confused...
shareI think he just likes to hear himself talk a tad too much. I bet he's young. He's got a sharp brain that doesn't quite work the same as all the rest, he's eager and he hasn't learned the hard way how and what to regulate yet. That's the impression I get, anyway...
shareI wish that were all true. LOL. Seriously.
But thank you for describing me that way. I like the way it makes me sound.
Unfortunately, I would say I'm the exact opposite. I'm an old guy whose brain is nowhere near as sharp as he wishes it were, but nevertheless one who asks all these probing questions not because I like to hear myself talk but because I genuinely want to find out what others think, and, maybe because I sadly am, as Roguemail says, a tad confused.
But like I say, I appreciate the way your post made me sound. :)
I believe it's way more prominent than most would care to know about. 'Seems there's always some seedy story emanating from my small region. The vast majority of it is likely never known, because the perpetrators are careful to keep it from ever being known. Just take a look what's going on inside your beloved "church" and extrapolate outward.
share"Church"? Ahhh, a fellow atheist!
http://asheepnomore.net/2017/12/18/rabbi-admits-to-sucking-25000-baby-penises-saying-its-a-joyous-occasion-video/
Rabbi Admits To Sucking 25,000 Baby Penises Saying βItβs A Joyous Occasion
[deleted]
That's true and it was the intention. We need balance. A person is not righteous for defending Jews or women or homosexuals. Rather, a person is a bigot for engaging in the motivated reasoning necessary to condemn Christians or men or heterosexuals, for lesser offenses. It's a matter of course to not even notice. A baby is mutilated and our first thought is often whether it would be antisemitic to say anything. Well if baby mutilation is Semitism, we had better be.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Or at least a harassment ... Er
share
Yeah, pretty much.
π