Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollywood's descent into debauchery: Jon Dougherty rips movie portraying adult-child sex
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 26, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 07/25/2002 11:43:45 PM PDT by 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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: miramax; tadpole; waltdisneycompany
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: LS
LOLITA ?
21 posted on 07/27/2002 6:13:21 AM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r
a 15 year old boy will not suffer emotionally

Boys can suffer from being used for sex by a much older adult. We wonder why there are so many divorces but we aren't teaching kids that marriage means something and that sex shouldn't require committment.

22 posted on 07/27/2002 6:29:41 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
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.

The same could be said about those 15 year old boys and the pedophile priests ---they could overpower them physically but the pedophile is also into mind control and seduction of children.

23 posted on 07/27/2002 6:35:06 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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

So tell me......why are you here on this thread?

24 posted on 07/27/2002 10:49:01 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Yeah right........a fifteen year old being lavished with the attentions of an older woman, who say suddenly decides that she doesn't want to play house.......boys and girls at fifteen are still developing mentally in this regard, and for a person of a more advanced sophistication to exploit this is unconscionable......and I guarantee you if it were your child in such a situation, you feel differently.

25 posted on 07/27/2002 10:54:24 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I suspect its the 'titillation' factor, much noted in repressed fundamentalist type minds, which are also lacking in any underlying moral 'common sense'.

Hey, I've got a great idea.........let's talk about this, and we'll see who is 'repressed' and lacking in any 'moral sense'?............Care to try?

26 posted on 07/27/2002 10:56:32 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Their 'christian' pretensions are pathetic. - They are merely evil people.

We can see about that also.

27 posted on 07/27/2002 10:57:35 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
I have to agree with you here :-). The truth is, and we like to joke and laugh about it (*wink, wink, nudge, nudge*), but most 15 year old boys would literally jump at the chance for that kind of action, and this is precisely the reason we have laws against this sort of thing. Young men could easily be taken advantage of by older women.
28 posted on 07/27/2002 11:10:20 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
So tell me......why are you here on this thread?


I'm trying to defend libertarian philosophy from the slanders of pedophile obsessed fanatics.
-- You?

29 posted on 07/27/2002 11:13:28 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Young men could easily be taken advantage of by older women.

See 'Pamela Smart' for clarification, if any need to.

30 posted on 07/27/2002 11:15:04 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
What's funny is that this isn't even a case of pedophilia, and I don't see any libertarians defending this kind of relationship. The puritans are just paranoid (as usual).
31 posted on 07/27/2002 11:16:51 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

Call it a converse, ready to dispel this nonsense sort of reason.

32 posted on 07/27/2002 11:16:58 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
The Smart case is a good example I think
33 posted on 07/27/2002 11:18:08 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Try addressing me by name next time. I'll respond.....promise.
34 posted on 07/27/2002 11:18:14 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Aren't libertarians just conservatives without values?
35 posted on 07/27/2002 11:18:37 AM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
Try addressing me by name next time. I'll respond.....promise.

Excuse me?

36 posted on 07/27/2002 11:23:36 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Libertarianism entails that the state must not impose traditional scruples through force of law; it does not entail that that such scruples are not valid. What is not legally binding on us may nevertheless be morally binding on us. Some libertarians may, of course, dislike and disagree with traditional moral rules; but others might believe strongly in them, even though they would not advocate imposing them on others through the power of the state, and they do not cease being libertarians for that
37 posted on 07/27/2002 11:24:43 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
- let's talk about this, and we'll see who is 'repressed' and lacking in any 'moral sense'?............Care to try?


Sure.
Feel free to rant your repressions away.
And I'll attempt to correct any delusions you might have about
'libertarian' morals. - I doubt it will do any good, but I'll give it a short try.
38 posted on 07/27/2002 11:27:17 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Exactly. They just use one of their favorite subjects [any 'illicit' sex] as a method to slur, then tar & feather their political opponents.
39 posted on 07/27/2002 11:33:47 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yeah, you know what tpaine, you have us pegged........don't tell anyone, but we modern Christians (as if we were any different from the others) have this secret agenda to paint sex as evil, you know, like God always told us. /dripping sarcasm

I know, it really is a good tactic for you to appeal to people's basest instincts, might even get you a few votes. (slap)

40 posted on 07/27/2002 11:47:30 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson