Okay. Most of you are probably looking at the title of my article in shock and disbelief, wondering where I am going with it. Those of you who have read my previous articles are likely asking yourselves what has gotten into me, because you are all likely aware by now of how much I detest it whenever anyone misuses the pedophile card against someone, when they have no real evidence to back up their accusation. In that event, you might even be wondering whether you have somehow been teleported to a parallel dimension in which my cosmic doppelganger is a self-proclaimed child advocate or a self-appointed pedo-expert himself. Otherwise, you might even be thinking that perhaps I have decided that if I cannot beat these self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts at their mind games, then I might as well join them. Well, blemishing Corey Feldman’s honorable name in their eyes would not be a way for me to do so, because these people worship him like a sun god. Moreover, I am not looking to do so. The reason that I decided to give this article of mine here the title that I did was because I had some strong points I wanted to make herein regarding certain events that have been going on here on Hive Blog lately that have me extremely concerned about the future of this writing platform.
Much to my regret, more and more self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts are now beginning to find their way here onto the Hive-Blog platform. However, I guess that we have to expect this occurrence, because Hive Blog does have free membership and does, as an American writing platform, have its door open to individuals who wish to exercise their freedom of speech. Whenever I read an article that I sharply disagree with, I will sometimes post my response to it in the article’s comments section to let its author know why I disagree with them and what evidence I have to refute their assertions on a topic. Whenever I do post these kinds of comments, I always acknowledge that I am walking into the lion’s den to let the author of a Hive-Blog article know that I sharply disagree with them and that, at the same time, I am only attempting to enlighten them rather than offend them despite that they may not like what I have to say. I find no harm in my doing so, because, after all, we witness these kinds of occurrences all the time on television. Take the example of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He has made periodic appearances on the HBO series Real Time with Bill Maher. Then again, he is a good friend of Bill Maher despite that both men have sharply opposing viewpoints on a myriad of issues. Therefore, he’s not likely to have butterflies in his stomach every time he is a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher, because he knows what Bill Maher is all about and vice versa.
Now, there are certain individuals here on Hive-Blog with whom I usually avoid communicating despite that I sharply disagree with them, because I know that those same people are extremely opinionated and even warlike about their stances on any given particular issue or topic. For example, I usually will not waste my time OR MY RESOURCE CREDITS exchanging replies with anyone who presents themselves as being obsessed with “Pizzagate,” because I know that those individuals do not want a healthy, educated debate with anyone but rather to threaten and intimidate anyone who disagrees with anything they state in even the most remote way. Moreover, most of those “Pizzagate” junkies, for a lack of a better term, are Edgar-Maddison-Welch wackos who couldn’t care less about the facts or the truth. They are nothing more than a cesspool of self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts who will insult and even go as far as accusing anyone of being a pedophile or a child molester simply for disagreeing with them on a juvenile-justice-related issue or topic. To make my point in a few short words, I got my fair fill of those looney tunes on YouTube back when I was naive enough to believe that I could actually talk any sense into them. I am not saying that Pizzagate is a hoax altogether, although I do have my reservations about the complete veracity of it upon considering that it originated as a conspiracy theory from Alex Jones, who hypocritically proclaimed to be a die-hard child advocate after he insisted that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut back in 2012 never happened. In my humble opinion, Alex Jones reminds me of the protagonist in the movie titled Network that came out in the 1970s. I realize that I am probably going to get loads of hate for posting this article of mine here on Hive Blog, but this is something that has really been eating inside of me lately.
I recently came across an article here on Hive Blog regarding “Hollywood pedophilia.” Notice that I have placed “Hollywood pedophilia” in quotations, because the article was not completely sincere about the definition of pedophilia. The grammar and spelling in that article was slightly off, but it was still well written in any event. Even so, it still does not excuse the misleading way that it was written. I do not doubt that each and every celebrity and public figure that its author mentioned therein is guilty of some kind of wrongdoing, although pointing the finger and falsely accusing someone of being a pedophile seems to be a common practice nowadays among content creators and journalists. There was a rumor floating around YouTube that Bob Saget was a child molester and that he had come on to the female child actresses on the television sitcom Full House in which he had played the role of a widowed father named Danny Tanner. I’ve never been a big fan of Bob Saget. In fact, I abhor the man, and I’ve always found him to be so full of himself. However, until someone presents condemning evidence that he is a kiddie diddler, I’m going to have to view him to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I once came across a news story about an actor who played the role of a widowed father in a similar sitcom called Hey, Dad..! that aired on television in Australia from 1987 to 1994, and this actor was accused of sexually molesting a little girl on that show; and he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 10 years and 9 months of prison in 2014 for sex-related crimes that included what he had done to that little girl. His name is Robert Hughes. Therefore, I can understand the concern that people have for the safety of children in the entertainment industry. In any event, my major concern with the above-described article is the misleading way that its author worded its contents.
At first, the above-described article appeared to me as a full-blown story about all the smut and depraved injustices against children that went on in the entertainment industry. After having read the article, it turned out that it also described incidents in which teenagers and adults had fallen victim to sexual harassment and sexual manipulation by Hollywood elites. I would have been perfectly fine with the contents of this same article in that respect, but I started to have problems with it after I had noticed that its author misused the terms “pedophile” and “pedophilia” on numerous occasions therein and the article quickly turned into a pedophile-panic-propaganda piece before I had even read the first few sentences of it. Because I do not wish to start a war with any of my fellow Hiveans, Hivians and Hivers and for the purpose of this article of mine, I am going to refer to the Hivean, Hivian or Hiver who wrote the above-described article as “NanobotFusion.”
I’m not the least bit surprised that NanobotFusion misused the terms “pedophile” and “pedophilia” on numerous occasions in his article, because, after all, he does identify himself as a journalist and an activist; and the mainstream press and the mainstream media here in the United States of America are notorious for misusing these two terms at the detriment and defamation of others. Anyhow, after I read his article, I simply had to post a reply in his comments section to express my objections to the way he had handled or rather mishandled the topic he had written about.
As my reply to NanobotFusion read, I emphasized to him that I was just as anti-pedophile as he was, which I am. The movie titled Gardens of the Night brought tears to my eyes, especially its ending. Also, the scene in the movie titled Silent Hill in which a janitor accosted a 9-year-old girl in a restroom and then molested her made me hate that janitor, and I did not care for the scene in that same movie in which a group of religious fanatics burned the little girl alive either. Because of my sensitivity about matters of this nature, I’ve never been able to watch those two movies ever again.
In my reply to NanobotFusion, I informed him that I used to live in Los Angeles back in the 1990s. Therefore, nothing he had told me in his article about all the depravities that go on in Hollywood and throughout the entertainment industry was anything new to me in that Hollywood has the reputation of being a cesspool of smut. Back when I was living in Los Angeles, I used to watch a television show called Night Talk with Dr. David Viscott that aired during the early A.M. hours on Sunday morning well before sunrise. People from the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area would phone in to speak with Dr. David Viscott and ask him for advice on that television program. Now and then he got telephone calls from individuals who complained that some Hollywood director had made sexual advances at them and had even attempted to assault them sexually. Dr. Viscott was always brutally honest about how broken the criminal justice system and the civil justice system both were in Southern California. Of course, that information from him was no surprise to me as I considered how Betty Broderick had gotten the short end of the stick in court before and after her ex-husband, Dan Broderick, and his new wife, Linda Kolkena, had driven her over the edge.
The biggest problem that I had with NanobotFusion’s article about “Hollywood pedophilia” was that he failed to separate the oranges from the apples therein. That is, he continued to refer to sordid situations involving teenagers as “pedophilia” and to these teenagers’ tormentors as “pedophiles.” However, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (“DSM-5”) specifies that a pedophile is someone 16 years of age or older who is sexually attracted to a prepubescent child younger than 13 years of age, who is five or more years younger than them. The term “hebephilia” is not an actual adverse diagnosis but rather an exception-to-the rule clause that dictates that if a person 16 years of age or older is sexually attracted to a pubescent or adolescent youngster five or more years their junior who is between 11 and 14 years old, then that individual is not a pedophile and does not suffer from any psychiatric disorder related to that same attraction of theirs. According to the DSM-5, if that same individual is only in his or her late teens and the object of his or her desires is 12 or 13 years of age, then that individual cannot be labeled as a pedophile or even as a hebephile but rather as a teleiophile, which is someone who is attracted to people the same age as them or significantly older than them. Any definition of pedophilia beyond those given parameters constitutes a civil liability in the form of defamation of character. Hebephilia has never been reclassified as a psychiatric disorder; and it falls within the protective umbrella of chronoastiphilia, which makes an individual who falls into that category no different from, say, a 67-year-old man who is sexually attracted to a 32-year-old woman. The American Psychiatric Association did extensive research to draw these conclusions and to place them in the DSM-5. I may not be a big fan of shrinks, but I will not dispute the fact that the American Psychiatric Association selects the cream of the crop in their profession to research these kinds of matters and form conclusions about them.
Now, as I stated in my reply to NanobotFusion, I am in no way excusing the actions and behavior of adults that he described in his article who may have done anything to harm any teenager (12 to 17 years of age); and I am not denying that there are adults who engage in this kind of destructive behavior against young people in that they pull rank to act on their dishonorable intentions in the event that they are in a position of trust and/or authority. However, NanobotFusion’s article reeks with all sorts of pedophile-panic propaganda that could mislead the public at large to misinterpret other situations that may appear to be toxic but are really benign despite that those situations may bear some resemblance to the scenarios that he described in his article. Let’s take the example of the musician R. Kelly. I completely get it. He is no goody two-shoes by a long shot, and I am not going to attempt to make him out to be Goldilocks. However, there is something that I would like to make clear about him.
Slightly over a decade ago, I once saw a local television advertisement about a group of middle-school girls who called themselves “The Fly Girls” and had vowed to put off sex until marriage. These young girls actually used one of R. Kelly’s songs as their closing theme for their public service announcement, which is such an irony on its own inasmuch as R. Kelly is definitely not someone who is seeking to promote teenage abstinence among school-age girls. In any event, NanobotFusion insisted in his article that R. Kelly had crossed over into “pedo territory” simply because he had become involved with a woman back when she was 17 years old. In view of the definition of “pedophilia” that appears in the DSM-5, a 17-year-old girl hardly qualifies to be the object of a pedophile’s desires. NanobotFusion stressed in his article that R. Kelly had married the late Aaliyah back when she was 15 years and he was well into his twenties in 1994. So what? When country singer Sammi Smith was 15 years old, she married a 26-year-old man named Bobby White; and he was not a pedophile. Now, I am not trying to water down any of the unethical and detrimental things that R. Kelly may have done to any of the teenage girls who came in contact with him during his music career. However, none of his accusers were prepubescent children at the time of their initial sexual encounters with him. Therefore, he doesn’t even come close to being a pedophile.
What I found so laughable about NanobotFusion’s article is that he even mentioned Rob Lowe as an example of “Hollywood pedophilia.” I responded to him in my reply in his comments section that, in view of the actual definition of pedophilia in the DSM-5, he could hardly brand Rob Lowe as a pedophile for doing a naughty video with a young woman whom he was not aware was 16 years of age back in 1988 when he was 24 years old. At worst, you could equate Rob Lowe to Joey Buttafuoco, but you could never rightfully equate him to a notorious child molester like Jesse Timmendequas.
The Wikipedia describes the common misuse of the terms “pedophilia” and “pedophile” and its detriment and harm to our society as a whole. As I have emphasized herein, I am in no way trying to put angel wings on any of the adults that NanobotFusion mentioned in his article as having caused harm to teenagers, and I get his point about Harvey Weinstein having dishonorable intentions upon making sexual advances at a 17-year-old girl. However, I will say that Levi Johnston is no less of an evil person for having unleashed havoc in Bristol Palin’s life than Harvey Weinstein is for having made sexual advances at a 17-year-old girl. Levi Johnston raped Bristol Palin back when she was a teenager in high school after he got her drunk and rendered her unconscious. It irks me that journalists are actually giving this creep a free pass for his actions simply because he is only four months older than Bristol Palin. His parental rights should have been terminated a long time ago, and his wife, Sunny Oglesby, is just as much human garbage as he is. I do not understand why no journalist will expose Levi Johnston for the kind of disgusting person that he is to the magnitude that he needs to be exposed. It makes me cringe every time some sensationalistic-happy news reporter or journalist throws a pity party for this piece of human feces and makes his wife, Sunny Oglesby, out to be someone that the public simply misunderstands. It is an absolute travesty of justice that Levi Johnston has gotten joint custody of his and Bristol Palin’s son, Tripp, when he still owes Bristol Palin a substantial amount of back child support. Of course, that will be another Hive-Blog article for another time.
In my reply to NanobotFusion, I complained that people proclaiming themselves to be child advocates are always talking about toughening the sex laws throughout our nation, but they never seem to bring up the notion of reforming our inheritance laws throughout our nation. I vaguely recall once hearing on the radio that our former United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had once stated that the majority of heinous crimes against children are committed by their own parents. Such crimes include incest and sexual abuse. Jose Menendez cut his two sons, Eric and Lyle Menendez, out of his will after he had sexually abused them for years. A Dupont heir in Delaware sexually molested his own two kids. These two kids’ mother had to take this same lowlife to court to ensure that he could not deprive his two kids of his estate after he died. That is, even if this creep didn’t have a will set up for his two kids, the court order that their mother sought would dictate that his entire estate would be divided up equally among his two children regardless of what his last will and testament stated, if he had one. Therefore, he would not be able to pull a Joan Crawford on his two kids with his estate as described in the book titled Mommie Dearest. I asked NanobotFusion the million-dollar question that I often ask self-proclaimed child advocates. Why haven’t any of these “child advocates” done anything about reforming the inheritance laws across this nation over the past 30 years? Louisiana and Puerto Rico are the only two jurisdictions that I know of here in the United States of America that prohibit any parent from disinheriting their children. Our nation needs laws in every state jurisdiction and extended jurisdiction that would prohibit parents, especially pedophile parents, from disinheriting their children under any circumstances. I have brought this subject up in my previous article here on Hive Blog.
NanobotFusion insisted in his article that Brooke Shields was exploited in Calvin Klein jeans advertisements on television back in the 1970s. Well, I think that we, as Americans, all need to be less concerned about Brooke Shields implying that she wore no underwear beneath her Calvin Klein jeans in a commercial that she did years ago as a teenage girl in which she was fully clothed at a time back when people didn’t get as worked up about teenage sexuality as they do now, and we need to focus more on the fact that many people who have suffered as victims of incest and child physical abuse at the hands of their parents are ending up destitute and homeless inasmuch as the current inheritance laws throughout our nation are doing nothing to protect them from these dreary fates. Brooke Shields is 54 years old now, and I’m sure that she was not the first teenage girl ever to wear no underwear beneath her clothing. If you ever saw the movie titled Thirteen, there was a scene in that movie in which the 13-year-old female protagonist played by Evan Rachel Wood told her mother (played by Holly Hunter) that she was wearing no underwear, and her mother made a look of shock at her. I do not encourage this kind of behavior among adolescent girls. However, I do realize that the 1950s are long gone, and the television sitcoms Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best have been off the air for years; and most Hiveans, Hivians and Hivers reading my article here hadn’t even been born yet in the 1950s.
I found it very interesting that NanobotFusion did mention in his article that French-Romanian actress Eva Ionesco had posed nude at the age of eleven in Playboy magazine, because there was something that I have been meaning to bring forth in one of my future articles. NanobotFusion was correct in his article that Eva Ionesco did pose nude at age eleven back in the 1970s. However, that one event in her life was the least of her problems back then. Her mother, Irina Ionesco, had subjected her to sexual exploitation by involving her in child pornography from the time that she was four or five years old. Most of us would share the opinion that no parent in their right mind would do something like that to their own daughter despite that other societies tend to be more permissive about child nudity than our society does. Eva Ionesco eventually starred in a crazy movie titled Maladolescenza when she was still 11 years old, which many film critics and other people have denounced as an exploitation film and which has also been banned here in the United States of America because of its risqué content. It is no secret that Irina Ionesco has never deserved the mother-of-the-year award, to say the least. Eva Ionesco eventually took legal action against her mother for putting her through these depravities during her childhood. Eva Ionesco’s current husband, Simon Liberati, has always stood by Eva Ionesco through thick and thin and has been her biggest advocate in her struggles to seek justice for what her mother did to her during her growing years.
What many English-language news agencies in the industrialized world will not disclose is the fact that Eva Ionesco was only 13 years old and her current husband, Simon Liberati, was 19 years old when both of them first met and began to fall in love with each other. If you speak and read French, you will run into information about that fact all over newspapers, magazines and news websites in French throughout the world, but English-language newspapers, magazines and news websites in the industrialized world never seem to bring up the subject of Eva Ionesco and Simon Liberati’s age difference and the fact that Eva Ionesco was only 13 years old when they first met and began developing feelings for each other. Why? Because probably most of the major English-language newspapers, magazines and news websites from First World nations that would know about such facts realize that Americans and people from other industrialized English-speaking countries are simply not ready to wrap their heads around this kind of information. Also, most of these same major English-language newspapers, magazines and news websites that have such knowledge are probably not in countries where English is the official language.
Conventional wisdom holds that most pedophiles and child predators would not protect a kid from other pedophiles and child predators. However, Simon Liberati has always been the white knight in shining armor in Eva Ionesco’s life. He stood beside her in her quest to right wrongs that were done to her during her childhood by unscrupulous individuals. He has loved her unconditionally since the time that he obviously first set eyes on her. Chris Hansen has done a couple of sting operations in his entertainment career in which he has caught a 19-year-old man appearing at a house to hook up with a 13-year-old girl for sexual intercourse. There are video clips of them on YouTube. An African-American woman stated in the comments section of one of those video clips on YouTube that when she was 13 years old, she had a 19-year-old boyfriend and that he was not very kind to her; and she insisted that every 19-year-old young man who got involved with a 13-year-old girl or even fell in love with one was a dangerous pedophile. However, in spite of this African-American woman’s unpleasant past with a 19-year-old man back when she 13 years old, her assertion could not be any further from the truth inasmuch as the DSM-5 specifies that a man in his late teen (17 to 19 years old) is not a pedophile if he is attracted to a 12- or 13-year-old girl. In any event, even if it were so, Simon Liberati would be the exception to the rule inasmuch as he protected Eva Ionesco when she was an adolescent rather than preyed upon her. At the end of the day, Simon Liberati was Eva Ionesco’s savior rather than her victimizer.
The statutory age of consent in France is 15 years old; and if I am not mistaken, it has been so for a very long time. None of us can really know whether or not Simon Liberati had sexual relations with Eva Ionesco back when she was only 13 years old. However, the French criminal justice system has always been more understanding about these kinds of couples than the American criminal justice system has been throughout the years. Therefore, we all may never know, and perhaps it should remain that way.
1. Demi Moore Is Not A Pedophile
The late Daniel Mark Driver, the late Kenneth Parnell, Jesse Timmendequas, Joseph E. Duncan III, and the late John Couey are the names of dangerous sexual predators who became notorious for their heinous crimes against children. However, most of their victims, if not all of them, were prepubescent children, and none of these lowlifes have anything to do with Demi Moore; and their criminal activities do not even bear any resemblance to anything that she has ever done in her life. Jack McClellan, Phillip R. Greaves and Todd Nickerson are all three men who have either sympathized with pedophiles or have proclaimed to be one because of their attraction to prepubescent children. Demi Moore doesn’t hang out with any of them. Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, the late Ariel Castro and Richard Allen Davis either sexually victimized adolescents in some way or murdered them or both. Demi Moore doesn’t even have anything in common with any of these same four monsters.
Anyhow, as I was reading the comments section of NanobotFusion’s article, what I found so self-contradictory on his part was that he implied that a viral video of a young Demi Moore kissing a teenage boy on camera during an interview was somewhat relevant to his article about “Hollywood pedophilia” after he had provided a link from his article to another article that praised Corey Feldman as some kind of spokesman, ambassador, or leader of the so-called war against “Hollywood pedophilia.” Why do I make this point? I’m working up to it. People all over the Internet have often commented that the above-described video somehow demonstrates that Demi Moore is some kind of in-the-closet pedophile when nothing could ever be any further from the truth. Self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts have ridiculed Demi Moore for having engaged in “creepy behavior,” if not “predatory behavior,” in this same video, and they have condemned her actions as inappropriate. These self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts have had love fests with one another on YouTube in their quest to belittle Demi Moore any way they can because of that video. Here is my response to all of this same rhetoric floating around throughout cyberspace. The first time that I ever saw this same video on YouTube, I vaguely recall that the person who posted it alleged that the boy in the video was only 13 years of age. Here is the video below.
Demi Moore Shared A Kiss With A Co-star Of Hers
First of all, before anyone pushes the pedophile-panic button after having seen this same video, let me clear up some important facts here. The boy in that video with Demi Moore was Philip Tanzini, who used to play the role of Jeremy Hewitt on the soap opera General Hospital back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Demi Moore played the role of Jackie Templeton in that same soap opera back in the early 1980s. The video was apparently filmed while cast members of General Hospital were gathering together for a social event. Philip Tanzini was not 13 years old back when that video was filmed as some people believe. He was 15 years old. Some people believe that Demi Moore was well into her twenties back when that video was made. However, Demi Moore was only 19 years old when that video was filmed. Therefore, there was only a four-year age difference between her and Philip Tanzini back when that video was produced. If you do not believe me, there is an article on the Internet that explains everything about that video and why it should not be taken the wrong way. Therefore, Demi Moore would clearly fall short of qualifying to be a pedophile. A pedophile actually has to be at least five years older than the sexual object of their desires. Moreover, Philip Tanzini was too old to be the sexual object of a pedophile’s desires. He was 15 years of age, and a sexual object of a pedophile’s desires has to be younger than 13 years of age (or younger than 11 years of age under certain circumstances). Even if Philip Tanzini had been 12 or 13 years of age back then, Demi Moore would still have fallen short of qualifying to be a pedophile inasmuch as there is a stipulation in the DSM-5 that excludes 17-, 18- and 19-year-old youngsters from being pedophiles if they are attracted to a 12- or 13-year-old youngster.
Demi Moore was not involved in anything romantic with this boy back in 1982 when the above-described video was produced. In fact, she had already been married at an early age by then, and she was still with her husband. She and Philip Tanzini were merely having a good time and trying to be humorous with the people who were interviewing them. This video was made way back in 1982. Therefore, even if Demi Moore had been having a secret tryst with Philip Tanzini back then, both of them were teenagers and their relationship was not likely illegal where this video was made. Therefore, Demi Moore’s actions back in 1982 were unconventional or taboo at worst according to American societal standards.
Ten years earlier Demi Moore and Philip Tanzini were both watching Sesame Street and Saturday morning cartoons back when Demi Moore was 9 years old and Philip Tanzini was 5 years old. In many state jurisdictions of our nation, a 19-year-old woman is legally too young to be prosecuted for “statutory rape” if she has had sexual relations with a 15-year-old boy because of the Romeo-and-Juliet provisions in most states’ statutory-rape laws. In Canada, once a minor turns 14 years of age, there has to be at least a five-year age difference between that minor and an adult in a sexual encounter before the adult can be charged with “statutory rape.” Now, I realize that many of you are probably saying that the statutory-rape laws were different back in 1982 when that video was filmed than they are now. Yes, they were. However, they were also more lenient back then than they are now. Not as many state jurisdictions had Romeo-and-Juliet provisions in their statutory-rape laws back then, but they didn’t need them inasmuch as these same laws were not as overpowering back then as they are now.
Back in 1982, it was not illegal in California for a 19-year-old woman to have a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy, because no law existed against it. The statutory-rape laws in California could only be used to prosecute boys and men back then. There were still many state jurisdictions throughout our nation back then that set the statutory age of consent at 15 years old, 14 years old or even younger than that. For example, up until 2008 in South Carolina, a girl became legally capable of consenting to sexual relations on her fourteenth birthday. In other words, if a 20-year-old college student traveled to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina for spring break and he happened to meet a cute-looking girl who presented herself to him as being 18 years old, he would not have faced any criminal charges in the event that he was to have brought her back to his hotel room and was later to have found out that she was really only 15 years old after having become intimate with her. I’m not going to debate here whether or not we should bring those old statutory-rape laws back, as it would be going off topic, but I will bring up one very strong, salient point regarding Corey Feldman.
2. What Is Acceptable For Corey Feldman Cannot Be Unacceptable For Demi Moore
I am not mindless of the fact that many of you out there may still find it creepy or icky for a 19-year-old woman to kiss a 15-year-old boy on the lips inasmuch as they are both on opposite sides of the legal age line in the form of the legal age of majority, and, therefore, you believe that Demi Moore engaged in inappropriate behavior. However, back when I was in high school, I knew this one young Korean man who was actually 19 years old and in the eleventh grade, and he was dating a 15-year-old girl. My classmates and I all knew how old he was and how old his girlfriend was; but none of us had any issue with it, because we all knew that he and his girlfriend were very much in love with each other. I do remember watching this one edition of the daytime television talk show The Jenny Jones Show in which a panel of guests discussed the topic of Internet safety and protecting kids online so many years ago. There was this one young married couple who appeared on that same daytime television talk show and had originally met each other in an online chat room. The husband was 19 years old and his wife was only 15 years old. After this couple appeared on stage, two middle-aged women on the panel of guests scooted their seats away from the 19-year-old husband and made a disgusted look at him. Then they asked him, “Why do you exploit children?” These same two middle-aged women looked somewhat uneducated and unkempt in their appearance. The young man tried every way to be as civil as he could with them, but both of these women acted like head cases with him while he and his wife conducted themselves in a respectable and dignified manner. Shortly thereafter, one of my co-workers had told me that she had first given birth to her baby back when she was 15 years old and her husband was 19 years old. By the time that she had this same conversation with me, she was 23 years old and her husband was 27 years old; and they were happily married. I briefly mentioned to her about that one edition of The Jenny Jones Show, and we both agreed that the two middle-aged women on that show had acted way out of line with the teenage couple who sat next to them. I have found much of this same kind of rude behavior all over YouTube and throughout the Internet.
Nevertheless, I can respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even though their opinion might not mirror the bigger picture. Also, there will continue to be self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts who will fiercely insist that Demi Moore is a pedophile for having kissed a 15-year-old boy on the lips back in 1982 despite that she was only four years older than him and that she was a teenager too. These same self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts will conveniently attack the American Psychiatric Association for refusing to expand its definition of pedophilia to include older teenagers who have non-Platonic or extra-Platonic feelings for younger teenagers, and nothing will change these know-it-alls’ minds regardless of how much evidence and scientific data are presented to them to refute their assertions in this regard.
Well, any of you who still believe that Demi Moore is a pedophile, a child molester or even simply a creepy and icky woman for having kissed Philip Tanzini on the lips in front of a camera during an interview back in 1982, brace yourselves for the shock of your life. Back when Corey Feldman was 18 years old, HE DATED A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL!!!! Yes, that’s right. Back in 1989, which was not as long ago as 1982, then-18-year-old Corey Feldman was involved in a sizzling romance with a 14-year-old girl named Drew Barrymore, whom we all know as Gertie in the movie titled E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Some of you might even remember Drew Barrymore having played the provocative role of a 15-year-old temptress in the movie titled Poison Ivy that came out in the early 1990s. Exactly as in the case of Demi Moore and Philip Tanzini, Corey Feldman and Drew Barrymore were four years apart in age difference when they were dating back in 1989. As Demi Moore was back in 1982, Corey Feldman was legally an adult over the age of eighteen in 1989 when he was romantically involved with Drew Barrymore. Drew Barrymore was actually younger back in 1989 than Philip Tanzini was in 1982. That is, Drew Barrymore was 14 years old in 1989 and Philip Tanzini was 15 years old in 1982. Do any of these facts make Corey Feldman a pedophile? No, they don’t for the same reasons that I described above regarding Demi Moore. Do any of these same facts make him a hypocrite? Well, we have to look into that possibility.
NanobotFusion linked his article to another article that praised Corey Feldman as some kind of hero or spokesman of the war against “Hollywood pedophilia,” while, at the same time, he indirectly implied in his comments section that Demi Moore was way out of line for kissing a 15-year-old boy on the lips back in 1982 when she was 19 years old. As you can see, there is a double standard that I am pointing out somewhere here in this mix of information; and it only gets worse. Corey Feldman was not a late bloomer; so if any of you are going to tell me in my comments section that he was a 15-year-old boy trapped inside the body of an 18-year-old man back in 1989, stop typing. He married a 21-year-old actress named Vanessa Marcil in August of 1989 immediately after he had broken up with Drew Barrymore earlier that same year. Also, he had dated Drew Barrymore before 1989 back when she was only TEN YEARS OLD!!! If you don’t believe me, there is an article on the Internet that proves it.
Self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts all over YouTube and the Internet have been cursing and condemning Demi Moore for having kissed a boy four years younger than her in a video back in 1982. She was 19 years old and the boy, Philip Tanzini, was 15 years old back when that video was first produced. Yet these same people have called Demi Moore a pedophile, a child predator, a child molester and a creepy and icky woman. On the other hand, these same self-righteous know-it-alls have repeatedly praised Corey Feldman as a hero, and they have named him the spokesman, the leader and the ambassador of the movement and the war against “Hollywood pedophilia.” Well, I have to be the one to ask all of these people the million-dollar question here. How is it that Corey Feldman never gets even as so much criticized for having once been an 18-year-old man involved in a sizzling romance with a 14-year-old girl, whereas Demi Moore continues to be slut-shamed and pedophile-shamed for having given a harmless kiss to a 15-year-old boy back when she was also a teenager? If any of you self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts out there who may be reading my article still insist that Demi Moore continues to deserve to be branded as a kiddie diddler, then you need to own your system of beliefs and dethrone Corey Feldman from his role as the spokesman, the leader and the ambassador of the war and movement against “Hollywood pedophilia,” because what I’ve explained herein would mean that he would also be a kiddie diddler. Are all of you starting to get the picture? It’s kind of like the police busting down the door of a hotel room and finding Chris Hansen in bed with a Junior Varsity cheerleader who is a high-school sophomore and for them to let him off the hook merely because he is Chris Hansen despite that his liaison had taken place in a state jurisdiction where the statutory age of consent was eighteen. No, no, no. All of you self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts do not get to have your cake and eat it too.
In one of his videos, YouTuber Scrubby accused an 18-year-old man who appeared on Dr. Phil of being a pedophile for hooking up with a 14-year-old girl. Therefore, YouTuber Scrubby does nothing to hide the fact that he is your typical self-appointed pedo-expert inasmuch as an 18-year-old man who is sexually attracted to a 14-year-old girl actually falls short of qualifying to be a pedophile in more ways than you can count according to the DSM-5. Here is YouTuber Scrubby’s video.
YouTuber Scrubby Expressed Harsh Words About An 18-Year-Old Man For Dating A 14-Year-Old Girl
I clearly do not agree with YouTuber Scrubby on all of the pedophile-shaming remarks he made in his video against the 18-year-old young man in question referred to as a “Homeless Neckbeard.” However, at the same time, I realize that YouTuber Scrubby is entitled to his opinion like anyone else despite that he may not be accurate in his assertions about this man. Nevertheless, after seeing this same video, I often find myself asking the million-dollar question on whether YouTuber Scrubby could make a similar video in which he accuses Corey Feldman of being a pedophile for dating a 14-year-old girl (Drew Barrymore) back when he was 18 years old. Somehow I don’t believe that YouTuber Scrubby has the bravery to do so, because he probably knows that many of his fellow self-appointed pedo-experts and self-proclaimed child advocates on YouTube would storm at him and demand that he posts another video retracting his statements. In other words, in their eyes, accusing Corey Feldman of being a pedophile would be like accusing Reverend Jesse Jackson of being an Aryan supremacist.
Technically, Corey Feldman could not be labeled as a pedophile for being involved with Drew Barrymore back when she was 10 years old either, because he was 14 years old himself; and, according to the DSM-5, nobody younger than 16 years of age can be diagnosed with pedophilia. I have read up on Drew Barrymore’s biographical background; and even though she had her fair share of problems as a child and as a teenager, she was always someone who had enough principles not to jump into bed with every boy who came her way. However, it does not mean that Corey Feldman did not pressure her into having sexual intercourse with him while he was dating her. He was a hellion during his teenage years, and he was not someone not to act on his adolescent hormones and his sexual urges during those years. No matter which way you look at it, it is a hypocrisy that self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts place Corey Feldman high up on a pedestal of honor and praise him for leading a war against “Hollywood pedophilia” while, at the same time, they attack Demi Moore for giving a teenage boy four years her junior a harmless kiss back when she was a teenager herself. Never mind how many good deeds Corey Feldman has done for this so-called movement and war against “Hollywood pedophilia.” Demi Moore only kissed a 15-year-old boy when she was 19 years old, but Corey Feldman actually DATED a 14-year-old girl and had a sizzling romance with her when he was 18 years old. Drew Barrymore was younger when she dated Corey Feldman than Philip Tanzini was when Demi Moore kissed him on the lips in front of a camera during an interview, and I would not be one to doubt that Corey Feldman attempted to do many more things to Drew Barrymore than just kiss her on the lips during the two different times in his life that he dated her. He likely touched her on parts of her body that would get most adult men over 18 years of age at least ten years in The Big House.
3. Conclusion To This Topic
While Corey Feldman may not be a pedophile or a child predator, neither is Demi Moore for the reasons described herein. Self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts need to get down off their moral high horses and start seeing the bigger picture here. While NanobotFusion received a great amount of praise from his fans for what he claimed to be exposing “Hollywood pedophilia” and the number of up-votes he got here on Hive Blog for his article was nothing to sneeze at, his above-described article still presents itself as nothing more than a pedophile-panic-propaganda piece that sinks down to a level that is even lower than that of tabloid publications like the National Enquirer and the Globe. Even though this man obviously has a great amount of talent as a journalist, he used it in the wrong ways in his above-described article. Articles and news stories are supposed to educate the public rather than brainwash them into generalizing or developing misconceptions about certain situations that may initially appear as unconventional or non-conformist. His article does not deserve a down-vote, but others do need to call him out on his misuse of medical terminology such as “pedophile” and “pedophilia” and his sensationalistic misrepresentation of certain facts.
Journalists’ propensity to misuse the terms “pedophile” and “pedophilia” has become a compulsion, an obsession and even an addiction in the American culture, especially against well-known people and celebrities; and crying “pedophile” has become the oldest propaganda trick in the book. NanobotFusion has the talent and the skills to be a good journalist; but if he is going to write stories to bring public awareness about the ills of child sexual exploitation and child abuse, he needs to do so in a completely honest manner rather than in a sensationalistic and misleading manner. He could channel all of that energy of his into doing so by putting together a story about how our nation needs to reform its inheritance laws because of the epidemic of parents committing incest and child physical abuse against their own children. He could do interviews with people who have ended up either destitute or homeless or both because they had suffered incest or physical abuse at the hands of one or both of their parents during their childhood, and he could urge his readers to contact their legislators to seek for them to make it illegal for parents to disinherit their children under any circumstances. Such a mission would be constructive on his part, and people would praise him for getting these new laws finally passed. Moreover, it appears that he does have the resources to do so.
This Article Is Copyright-Protected.