New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Pedophile

[brekin]

New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A Gay Pedophile
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... sney_w.php

There's lots of bizarre lore surrounding the legend of Walt Disney. Just off the top of our heads, we've heard he's a Communist (despite him being a founding member of the anti-communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals), a Nazi, a fascist, a racist, a homosexual, a cryogenically frozen head--and now, thanks to a new book by Darwin Porter, Hollywood Babylon Strikes Again, we can add pedophile to that list.

Reports GaySexBlog.net, the book alleges that Disney was "fond of trying on his mother's make-up, clothes and high heels" as a child and that he could uh, "never get an erection for women."

​Hollywood Babylon Strikes Again! further alleges that Disney owned a Los Angeles apartment in order to meet up with various rentboys, including a man named Ralph Ferguson who has gone on the record stating that he received $100 for sex with Disney.

And here's the real eyebrow-raiser: Author Porter also writes that Disney fell in love with young star Bobby Driscoll, of Song of the South (1946) who also voiced Peter Pan.

Which might be another reason the Walt Disney Company wants you to forget Song of the South ever existed:

Anyway, GaySexBlog.net further states:

Driscoll says he was "dropped like garbage when I was no longer a cute little kid and I didn't appeal to [Walt] anymore."


Ew? Either way, keeping in mind the perpetual smoke and mirrors surrounding Disney, take it all with a grain of salt--the same book, according to an Amazon.com review, also alleges:

Charlton Heston was a bi-sexual lover of the young, Marlon Brando had sex with his son Christian and daughter Cheyenne, and innumerable Hollywood celebrities were gay prostitutes or bi-sexual prostitutes.

[Simulist]

I wouldn't mind the term, "gay pedophile," nearly so much if "straight pedophile" were used more commonly -- but most of the time, it's just "pedophile" in those cases.

And I do wonder how the common juxtaposition of those two words, "gay pedophile," affects perception. Verbal guilt by association? As if "gay" and "pedophile" somehow belong together?

They don't.

[Wombaticus Rex]

brekin, I edited the title.

[brekin]

Simulist wrote:

I wouldn't mind the term, "gay pedophile," nearly so much if "straight pedophile" were used more commonly -- but most of the time, it's just "pedophile" in those cases.

And I do wonder how the common juxtaposition of those two words, "gay pedophile," affects perception. Verbal guilt by association? As if "gay" and "pedophile" somehow belong together?

They don't.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

brekin, I edited the title.

I'm not going to the wall over this, but "gay pedophile" is what the book alleges.
Meaning that Walt alleging was exclusively into same sex pedophilia.
Yes, the term "straight pedophile" is not as common, or used at all, but probably because we
assume statistically that is what it is when you just hear "pedophile".
Are we going to lose clarity to comfort levels?

I'm sure those previous two words can affect perception, but then I assume intelligent readers
are aware of how they are being affected and can adjust accordingly.
If someone posts "an African-American male rapist" I'd assume that readers would know that
the three groups aren't an exclusive trifecta even if the person in question belongs to all three.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If someone posts "An African-American male rapist" they've got an agenda.

[slomo]

I have to concur that the term "gay pedophile" is slightly offensive. And if you are familiar with my posts you would know that I am hardly a militant faggot that gets upset every time a gay person is maligned.

The phrase may originate from the book itself, but one has to wonder why the authors felt the need to reinforce the association between "gay" and "pedophile".

This is demonstrably untrue:

Yes, the term "straight pedophile" is not as common, or used at all, but probably because we assume statistically that is what it is when you just hear "pedophile".

A non-negligible fraction of the US population believes, actually, that gay = pedophile.

It goes against my personal groove to force others to revise their words just because I find them offensive (I'm not that breakable) but it doesn't stop me from pointing out the offense itself.

[brekin]

Wombacticus Rex wrote:

If someone posts "An African-American male rapist" they've got an agenda.

Like what? Sure I understand the media likes to skew things against certain ethnic minorities,
and some people have racist agendas, but we all belong to groups.
If someone is on the run and you need to get out their description,
how would you suggest you describe to the public someone who fits the above description?

slomo wrote:

I have to concur that the term "gay pedophile" is slightly offensive. And if you are familiar with my posts you would know that I am hardly a militant faggot that gets upset every time a gay person is maligned.

The phrase may originate from the book itself, but one has to wonder why the authors felt the need to reinforce the association between "gay" and "pedophile".

Maybe to clarify exactly who Walt was allegedly preying on?
It makes it apparent that Walt was probably targeting Bobby Driscoll's and not Annette Funicello's.

This is demonstrably untrue:

Quote:

Yes, the term "straight pedophile" is not as common, or used at all, but probably because we assume statistically that is what it is when you just hear "pedophile".

A non-negligible fraction of the US population believes, actually, that gay = pedophile.

I'm not aware of any polls on this. And maybe they do. Doesn't mean there aren't gay pedophiles.
There are Muslim terrorists and I'm sure to the ignorant they are one and the same.
But I don't usually pander to the ignorant, and I don't think having to spell out the obvious to those
who already know it is productive. If people on the board don't understand the difference between:
[gay + pedophile] and [gay = pedophile] then sure time to get offended. But being afraid some people,
somewhere who already can't make the distinction will be encouraged or further confused is silly and
more then a little sanctimonious.

It goes against my personal groove to force others to revise their words just because I find them offensive (I'm not that breakable) but it doesn't stop me from pointing out the offense itself.

I can understand you finding it offensive and I respect that. I disagree that is offensive for the
reasons given above and I hope you can see my point of view.

[Bruce Dazzling]

A non-negligible fraction of the US population believes, actually, that gay = pedophile.

David Sedaris angrily but humorously makes that exact point in Chicken in the Henhouse.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I personally found it offensive and I removed it. This is not a hypothetical conversation.

Why didn't you specify that he was a white pedophile? Etc.

[Simulist]

I'm sure those previous two words can affect perception, but then I assume intelligent readers
are aware of how they are being affected and can adjust accordingly.

If you're "sure" the term "gay pedophile" can "affect perception," then why use it?

Gay people already have enough crazy prejudice to deal with without having a term like that further "affecting perception" where we are concerned.



[Edited because I hit "Edit" instead of "Quote," and messed it up.]

[brekin]

Wombacticus wrote:

I personally found it offensive and I removed it. This is not a hypothetical conversation.

Why didn't you specify that he was a white pedophile? Etc.

I know this is not a hypothetical conversation. I was asking you
about your post:

Wombacticus Rex wrote:

Quote:
If someone posts "An African-American male rapist" they've got an agenda.

Like what? Sure I understand the media likes to skew things against certain ethnic minorities,
and some people have racist agendas, but we all belong to groups.
If someone is on the run and you need to get out their description,
how would you suggest you describe to the public someone who fits the above description?

I didn't specify anything. The title was taken from the original post.
The reason I would guess they didn't specify Walt Disney was
a "white pedophile" is maybe because everyone knows Walt Disney is white
and so his race isn't relevant.
But him being allegedly a gay pedophile is new information.
If Walt was also secretly African American though, then his race would probably be relevant.
But then I can only guess what that would do to some of our ignorant readers
we must shepherd if they saw the title:
"New Book Alleges Walt Disney Was A African American Gay Pedophile"

[Simulist]

I'm not going to the wall over this...

Really?

[brekin]

Simulist wrote:

brekin wrote:
I'm sure those previous two words can affect perception, but then I assume intelligent readers
are aware of how they are being affected and can adjust accordingly.

If you're "sure" the term "gay pedophile" can "affect perception," then why use it?

Gay people already have enough crazy prejudice to deal with without having a term like that further "affecting perception" where we are concerned.

Everything can affect perception. I honestly think "gay" is a bad start.
I'm with James Baldwin who said sexuality should be a verb not a noun.
And what do you suggest, "...new book alleges he was a pedophile who was exclusively interested in the same sex." ?
What would you tell your friend over the phone if you had to relate this?
We start to get into a silly circles within circles like this thread where people are not so much offended at what a
sentence says but offended at what it possibly implies and some people may associate it with.

Simulist wrote:

brekin wrote:
I'm not going to the wall over this...

Really?

Yes, lol. Somehow I thought people would be more interested in the allegations then
descriptive word combination's which could be worried over if the ignorant
should stumble upon and misunderstand. But these days people seem to be
big on process and not product, and I'm at the wall again.

[Simulist]

Oh for God's sake. "Black rapist" is a similar sort of rubbish as "gay pedophile" -- even if the guy was in fact a "rapist" and "black."

Terms like this further misconceptions about entire groups of people.

And you ought to know that.

I'm sure those previous two words can affect perception, but then I assume intelligent readers
are aware of how they are being affected and can adjust accordingly.

Since you're "sure" the term "gay pedophile" can "affect perception" and since you only "assume" that "intelligent readers" can "adjust accordingly," then knock it the hell off.

K?

[psynapz]

brekin, whycome you don't trust the board to wordwrap on your behalf?