Hollywood's descent into debauchery: Jon Dougherty rips movie portraying adult-child sex

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 26, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

[JohnHuang2]

While Tinseltown is known for its leading men and women, when it comes to good old-fashioned morality, Hollywood is devoid of leadership.

In last week's issue of Parade Magazine, actress Bebe Neuwirth, 42, briefly discussed her new movie role in which she plays an adult woman who seduces a teen-age boy.

To her credit, Ms. Neuwirth admitted it is morally improper for a "mature woman to bed a 15-year-old boy." But she went on to say that she took the role anyway because it gave her a chance to work with Sigourney Weaver, whom she has long admired. Translated, that means she believes working with someone she admires is more important than refusing a role that purports to legitimize adult-minor sex, illegal in all 50 states, and that will be shown to impressionable over- and underage audiences all over the country.

While the long-term implications of Neuwirth's decision are shocking enough, consider the short-term implications as well: She has decided to play a character who is "bedding" a teen-age boy just one year older than missing Utah teen Elizabeth Smart.

Moral relativists are groaning already, but Neuwirth's decision has etched another scar in the rusting, dilapidated moral armor of our society. And yet, history has proven time and again that a society with no moral "norms," no acceptable limits on behavior, usually destroys itself.

Not convinced? Then try this more modern example of the effects an overdose of moral relativism is having on Western culture.

According to a story published in Australia's Herald Sun newspaper on Tuesday, family advocates are increasingly worried about the health of Australian children because more of them are having children of their own. Among other things, they blame Western "pop culture."

"Family advocates blame the disturbing frequency of children bearing children on permissive sex education in schools and a pro-sex popular culture," said the paper. "Soap operas depicting young people as sexually active, music videos and teen magazines must share the blame. …"

"… Must share the blame"? If only.

There is nothing defensible about adults "bedding" children; it is, for any reason, unacceptable, either on- or off-screen. Neuwirth's portrayal, therefore, goes beyond the excuse of "artistic value" or even the First Amendment's protection of speech and expression – neither of which qualifies here, by the way, but especially not when our own nation is awash in a rash of horrific child abductions, rapes and murders.

I've no doubt most Hollywood stars and starlets are legitimately concerned about the epidemic of predatory targeting of children in this nation. I would never suggest otherwise. But what are they doing to about it? Are they willing to "share the blame"?

Are stars putting pressure on their colleagues to refuse morally reprehensible roles? Are they rebelling against screenwriters who create such situations for their characters? How do they feel about Neuwirth's particular role?

Or will they simply flip us the collective "bird" again, admonish us to "grow up," then hide behind the straw man argument of the First Amendment – even though not one of them can point to the constitutional provision protecting adult-child sex?

Whatever the case, there's no question it's way past time for Hollywood to step up and accept its responsibility for playing the largest role in creating this climate of sexual permissiveness currently permeating our society.

Stepping up isn't about slapping down Bebe Neuwirth per se, and it's not about judging the people who inhabit Tinsel Town. It's not about being "cool," and it's not about shunning "the Establishment." It's about judging behavior. It's about judging decisions. It's about protecting against the sexual debasement of kids.

It's about helping people like Elizabeth Smart and her parents. Are there any true leading men and women left in Hollywood capable of doing this?

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, July 26, 2002

Quote of the Day by Howlin

[VMI70]

I wouldn't pass up

"a chance to work with Sigourney Weaver"

[Mariner]

When I was 15 I would have given Bebe a workout, without ANY damage to my psyche........of that I am certain.

[goldstategop]

Flip it around... Would you consider your 15 year old daughter getting a sexual workout with a mature man? Of course not. You'd be seek his head with a statutory rape charge. Hypocrite.

[sushiman]

ping

[Chunga]

I'm sorry goldstategop. An adult woman bedding a teenaged male and an adult male bedding a teenaged female aren't the same thing. Not even remotely. American society doesn't see them as being the same. Neither do you.

Don't get me wrong...neither is acceptable and in the Grand Scheme Of Things they're probably equally immoral, especially if the adult in either case is in a position of authority over the youth. But there aren't very many 15-year-old boys who can't overpower any woman who might desire a roll in the hay (should they wish); conversely, there aren't very many 15-year-old girls who can overpower any man who might desire sex with them.

I'm afraid that the Western Psyche, at least, is far more predesposed toward protecting underaged females from the advances of adult men than vice versa. If that's hypocritical, there's no point in singling out Mariner for a tongue-lashing.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

An adult woman bedding a teenaged male and an adult male bedding a teenaged female aren't the same thing. Not even remotely. American society doesn't see them as being the same.

I'm afraid that the Western Psyche, at least, is far more predesposed toward protecting underaged females from the advances of adult men than vice versa. If that's hypocritical, there's no point in singling out Mariner for a tongue-lashing.

You're wrong on both generalizations. More and more women (Mary Kay Letourneau ring a bell?) are being held accountable for their actions. The following is just one example of the cases that have received attention on freerepublic in the last six months. You may not think society sees them as being the same but fortunately the people sitting on these juries do.

Teacher convicted of rape and molestation

Susan Lemery

[Chunga]

Right. And I'm glad juries are holding adult female sexual predators responsible for their actions.

I just don't believe that in most people's heart of hearts the two scenarios register the same amount of visceral outrage. The law of course should apply equitably.

[eno_]

I saw her on Broadway in "Chicago." You would not be disappointed. Anyone who thinks you are perverted clearly does not remember being a 15 year old boy.

[dvwjr]

Bebe Neuwirth? Wasn't she the one that played the character "Dr. Lilith Sternin-Crane" on Cheers and Frasier?

[LS]

Er, I hate to tell you but the average marrying age of Westerners until the 20th century was in the teens, usually the EARLY teens. In the time of the American Revolution, it was common for 13-14 year old girls to be married. Marine Antoinette was 15 when she married Louis XVI, and that was considered "old."

Later marriages are a distinctly western, specifically American, development associated largely with the wealth of this country that allowed people to delay marriage, hence sex.

Now, more to the point of the article, where has this guy been? There have been dozens of movies about women seducing young boys (remember "the Graduate?") as well as men secuding younger girls (I seem to remember a Lisa Bonet movie). My only complaint here is that the author acts like this is something new.

[hobbes1]

Yup. If i was 15 she could have me...Hell, I'm 38 an she can still..

[hobbes1]

YEah, but they were lucky to see 40....

[Kevin Curry]

It appears that the pro-pedo patrol is out in force this morning, pushing for the incremental acceptance of adult-child sexual relationships at age 15, 14, 13 etc etc "as long as it's an adult female" etc. These folks are NAMBLA's unwitting but zealous shock troops, building on the success of the pro-porn and pro-sodomy contingents to make pedophilia acceptable.

Perhaps in as few as ten years adult child sexual relationships based on "consent" will be fully tolerated and legally protected, even where the child is as young as 9 or 10.

This is where were are tending as a people because so many fools among us believe that any sexual fantasy about an adult they had at age 15 or younger legitimizes the act. Using this logic, any child who at age 9 capable of responding sexually to an adult ought to be considered free game. The trick is to get the child to "consent."

Ultimately, liberals and libertarians have no meaningful defense against pedophilia. Both groups are destined to tolerate it.

[fporretto]

On this and related topics, please see:

Magic Numbers

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[teeman8r]

men are different from women and boys are different from girls.... a 15 year old boy will not suffer emotionally from a concensual heterosexual relationship... MHO of course.

[yendu bwam]

Ultimately, liberals and libertarians have no meaningful defense against pedophilia. Both groups are destined to tolerate it.

Exactly - because there is no underlying morality there.

[DoctorMichael]

...........pro-pedo patrol is out in force this morning, pushing for the incremental acceptance of adult-child sexual relationships............

I couldn't have phrased it better myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A week or so back one of those 'Hollywood Highlights'-type of shows did a segment on this movie ("TADPOLE") and I immediately saw this piece of trash for the pro-pedophelia propoganda that it is. They used all the usual phrases when trying to peddle this piece of crap like "a challenging movie". I was astounded that the media was actually trying to SELL pedophelia.

Then I read some of the responces on THIS Thread.....................and just shook my head in dismay remembering some of the posts I got on another Thread: SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713798/posts

Maybe we should call this: SELLING PEDOPHELIA

[tpaine]

Kevin Curry said:
Ultimately, liberals and libertarians have no meaningful defense against pedophilia. Both groups are destined to tolerate it.

---

Exactly - because there is no underlying morality there. YB

---

Ultimately, there is no meaningful defense against self described 'christian' fanatics that imagine that libertarians defend pedophilia.

Actually, these 'christians' seem destined to tolerate it, cause they obviously enjoy talking about child sex constantly.

I suspect its the 'titillation' factor, much noted in repressed fundamentalist type minds, which are also lacking in any
underlying moral 'common sense'. - Their 'christian' pretensions are pathetic. - They are merely evil people.

[GeneD]

IT'S A DISNEY!!!!!!!!