Corey Feldman: Pedophilia No. 1 problem in Hollywood

[brekin]

Essentially everyone of us that has ever had sex carries the HPV.
Probably shouldn't discriminate based on that.

No doubt, but we all haven't gotten throat or anal cancer. Who and why, and in what numbers has some bearing to sexual lifestyle and practices, no?

Discriminate?...Huh?

[norton ash]

How about Romancing in the Stone? Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

All I remember about that movie is the shittiest song Eddy Grant ever recorded.

[Burnt Hill]

Discriminate as in recognizing as different,
not as being prejudiced.

*How do people get oral HPV?

Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPVandOropharyngealCancer.htm

[guruilla]

Surely the point here is not whether it can be proven that there's a correlation between fellatio/homosexuality and throat cancer but whether it can be proven that there's an association in people's minds, esp. Hollywood people's minds?

On the other hand this could all be a digression, since MD only found his way under the RI-scope because he fit the 72 family man with 2 kids profile. What did I start?

[Nordic]

Yeah it turned into a thread about one person's health problems and whether or not that means he's gay. If he's gay so what? It doesn't mean he's a pedophile. There was an assumption at work here, that being gay made him a suspect in boy-rape. Michael Douglas was a big star even in the 70s and was the son of a rich and famous actor. That automatically puts him into Highly Promiscuous Territory regardless of his sexual orientation. It would also mean he was exposed to a LOT of recreational drug use, whether he indulged or not.

None of these things are terribly relevant to whether or not he raped Corey Haim and is part of a pedophile ring. I mean due to his age and connections and status he should be on the list but beyond that discussion of what he might gargle in his throat and put in his mouth seems out of line.

[guruilla]

If he's gay so what? It doesn't mean he's a pedophile. There was an assumption at work here, that being gay made him a suspect in boy-rape. Michael Douglas was a big star even in the 70s and was the son of a rich and famous actor. That automatically makes puts him into Highly Promiscuous Territory regardless of his sexual orientation. It would also mean he was exposed to a LOT of recreational drug use, whether he indulged or not.

None of these things are terribly relevant to whether or not he raped Corey Haim and is part of a pedophile ring. .

I'd say it's a step too far to want to argue that MD's, or whoever's, sexual proclivities are irrelevant when exploring the possibility of criminal rape, child or otherwise. That pedophiles are often also bisexual or homosexual and hence their orientation is relevant, most especially if they are posing as family men (or women), in no way amounts to a suggestion that bisexuality or homosexuality is itself reason to be suspicious of someone. Tho I guess that's a pretty fuzzy line....

[Burnt Hill]

Surely the point here is not whether it can be proven that there's a correlation between fellatio/homosexuality and throat cancer but whether it can be proven that there's an association in people's minds, esp. Hollywood people's minds?

On the other hand this could all be a digression, since MD only found his way under the RI-scope because he fit the 72 family man with 2 kids profile. What did I start?

Maybe, but I am also concerned about the understanding of those we are having an open discussion with.
Also, I am unsure of what you are trying to say in your most recent post,
it seems like some circular reverse reasoning, so I also question my own understanding.
Also isn't there a clear line in the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia?
As in one has absolutely nothing to do with the other?
If not I would be happy to be googled at this point.

[guruilla]

Also isn't there a clear line in the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia?
As in one has absolutely nothing to do with the other?
If not I would be happy to be googled at this point.

My own experience says otherwise. Speaking culturally at least, psychologically, it is harder to say. But psychologically speaking, there isn't a clear line in the differences between sexuality and pedophilia, obviously.

[Burnt Hill]

I do value anecdotal information, but it will take me a while to process the article at your link.

As far as there not being a line between sexuality and pedophilia,
I would suggest there is a distinct line, that is even more clear when speaking psychologically.
Otherwise that sounds like nambla propaganda,
and I want to be sure that's not what you mean.

[guruilla]

As far as there not being a line between sexuality and pedophilia,

Confused. Are you saying that pedophilia does not relate to sexuality?

Maybe you mean healthy sexuality? If so, then what's our model of healthy sexuality?

The link is only partially anecdotal. Mostly it is fact-based (not that anecdotes aren't facts).

[Burnt Hill]

Even when viewing sexuality as a continuum - with health sexuality - free of abuse, and within the realm of consent, at the center-
then the further you move away from healthy sexuality the further you move towards mental illness.
So yes I would suggest pedophilia as less an expression of sexuality more as an expression of mental illness.

[guruilla]

Even when viewing sexuality as a continuum - free of abuse, and within the realm of consent,
then the further you move away from healthy sexuality the further you move towards mental illness.
So yes I would suggest pedophilia as less an expression of sexuality more as an expression of mental illness.

But is there such a thing as sexuality free of abuse, if we have been collectively sexually abused at some level or another?

I don't accept the designation of "mental illness" as a valid one. Traumatized psyche, yes; but again, where is the psyche that is not traumatized?

Understanding the problem of pedophilia is not so simple as calling it a mental illness. Homosexuality was once seen the same way.

[Burnt Hill]

If indeed we have been "collectively sexually abused" then perhaps sexual expression with in the bounds of consent would be "sexuality free of abuse", and could be a path towards freeing a traumatized psyche.

Of course it is not as simple as calling pedophilia a mental illness.
That would also diminish the potential trauma of the victim.
I personally would avoid comparing it to homosexuality though,
even in that context.
There is a clear line of distinction that the comparison blurs.

[guruilla]

Only if your bottom line is the idea of consent. Is it worth remarking (or safe to) that prepubescent children are permitted (seen as responsible enough) to consent to chemically and even surgically altering their gender, but not to having sex?

Not to open up this can of worms, but if there's an overlap between psychological trauma, sexual abuse, pedophilia, gender confusion, homosexuality and other non-conventional but "consensual" forms of sexuality, there's an overlap. Political sensitivity has nothing to do with it, surely?

[stickdog99]

celebrity gossip never seemed so rigorous