Stephen Collins Allegedly Confesses to Child Molestation

[USS Triumphant]

Not to defend Collins if he's guilty but its interesting how people are firing him left and right while at the same time Woody Allen and, especially, Roman Polanski continue to, not only find work, but enjoy universal respect among the Hollywood elite. Maybe Collins needs to go into directing.

Strange how some accused are considered a while others get a .

It isn't that strange if you take at all seriously the conspiracy theories that say that the (Scientologists/Zionists/Illuminati/etc) keep dirt on ALL of their celebrities in order to keep them in line. Maybe Polanski was a good little soldier and The Powers That Be never intended for him to get ratted out, so they try to act like it didn't happen and petition to clear him. Maybe OJ really pissed someone powerful off and he really DIDN'T kill his wife and her friend, but the evidence saying he did was arranged. And maybe the reason the tape with Collins saying what he did has never seen the light of day until now is because now is when he stopped pleasing his masters in Hollywood.

I'll check with my reptile overlords and let you whether that's it or not.

 

[Epsilon-9]

How do you blow a Decker up?
With a Photon Tor-Paedo.

Maybe ILM can replace him with alien maybe Jar, Jar Binks.

 

[doubleohfive]

Someone on another board has already suggested that given technology nowadays it would be easy to replace him with another actor on a future re-release of the movie.

This is the absolutely most stupid thing I've ever heard of. You might as well censor Chinatown (a bona fide cinema classic) or the entire decade of 7th Heaven (which I'm sure has its loyal viewers who loved it).

Certainly not the worst thing to happen in these situations but one that is still frustrating is this idea that the work of accused (or guilty) individuals must also be villified or criminalized because of the actions of one person. Chinatown, The Cosby Show, Thriller, Manhattan, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture are no less the masterpieces they were before all these crimes (or alleged crimes) took place than they are now.

And before anyone jumps on the "witty" bandwagon and makes some stupid joke about Star Trek: The Motion Picture not being a masterpiece, yeah, I know, opinion varies. That's not the point I'm making.

More succinctly, don't hate the art. Hate the crime/criminal.

 

[the G-man]

Yeah.

Roman Polanski is a convicted forcible child rapist, I've never seen any evidence of repentance and I think it's sick the way that Hollywood keeps giving the guy work and honors. But there's no way in hell I would advocate excising Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown from the collective memory.

 

[bigdaddy]

If we started editing out pieces of things because people are rapists or hit their wives or do drugs or whatever bullshit reason you can think of there would be nothing left.

It's like after 9-11 when everyone started talking about the towers out of everything. They existed and if we try to forget that then what's the point of honoring all the dead? It's just silly what people come up with.

 

[Epsilon-9]

Yeah.

Roman Polanski is a convicted forcible child rapist, I've never seen any evidence of repentance and I think it's sick the way that Hollywood keeps giving the guy work and honors. But there's no way in hell I would advocate excising Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown from the collective memory.

I didn't at the time knew he was a pedophile until I found out and now I banned his film DVD The Pianist to play in my home , the dirty filthy nonce.

Roman Polanski ‪winning the Oscar® for Directing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

 

[Beagleman]

Yeah.

Roman Polanski is a convicted forcible child rapist, I've never seen any evidence of repentance and I think it's sick the way that Hollywood keeps giving the guy work and honors. But there's no way in hell I would advocate excising Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown from the collective memory.

I didn't at the time knew he was a pedophile until I found out and now I banned his film DVD The Pianist to play in my home , the dirty filthy nonce.

Roman Polanski ‪winning the Oscar® for Directing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

He is a rapist, yes, not a pedophile. There is a very important distinction. ...sorry, go on... or not.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^He raped a 13 year old. I'd say any distinction is at best blurred.

 

[Trekker4747]

^He raped a 13 year old. I'd say any distinction is at best blurred.

It's a blurry area but it's important to remember that a pedophile has sexual attraction to a child, a child being someone who has not begun puberty.

Someone who has gone through (or is going through) puberty is not a child (biologically speaking, at least; since they're entering sexual maturity and their reproductive age) and therefore likely wouldn't interest a true pedophile.

Someone who's attracted to someone who's going through puberty but hasn't yet reached sexual maturity is an ephebophile though someone in their very early teens just beginning puberty is arguably in a very, very, gray area when weighing ephebophilia or pedophilia. But it still can be argued if the girl is starting to develop breasts, hips, etc. they're not strictly a child and aren't likely to interest someone who has true pedophilia.

All moot, of course, since society has set its own lines and boundaries of what is acceptable legally and socially and generally no matter how developed a teenager may be if they've not yet reached the legal age of consent then any interest in them is sort of creepy and even then it still is depending on the age difference.

There's also a huge difference between looking at a fully developed teenage girl with a pique of interest in a "an appealing form" sort of way and taking inappropriate actions with someone who doesn't have the mental or sexual maturity to deal with adult encounters and situations.

I'm not familiar with the Roman Polanski case but I'd argue he's certainly flirting with the pedophilia line when have inappropriate interaction with a 13-year-old-girl.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I used to think it was worth arguing the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophila, but frankly, it doesn't make much difference. It's no less wrong for someone to rape/molest an adolescent than to do the same to a pre-pubescent child, so what's the point in hairsplitting the terminology?

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, I think it's important to make a distinction between what is deviant behavior of someone looking at at child sexually and looking at someone going, or has gone through, puberty sexually.

In the eyes of the law acting on such desires is wrong, sure, but as a society we should understand the difference and distinction between the two. Looking at a child, someone young enough that they still spend the whole day in the same classroom, is wrong and sick. Without question.

When we start talking about teenagers we get into more and more gray areas. Someone who gives a 16-year-old girl a second glance shouldn't be looked down on as a deviant or pervert. (Again, we're just talking about looking here.) A 14-16 year-old girl is likely to be menstruating, regularly or not, has developed breasts and hips and likely at an age where she's wearing more glamorous makeup and is managing body-hair.

We shouldn't think of someone who looks at a teenage girl as being a pedophile or anywhere near one. Because such a person is not looking at a child but is, in effect, looking at a young woman. We live in a society that, sure, places an arbitrary age on when a teenager can consent to sex but it was just a century ago a 16-year-old girl likely would already be in a serious relationship if not married. We could even argue there's a biological reason females begin their reproductive life in their teens and it ends in their 50s. Society has narrowed and narrowed the acceptable time-frame for a woman to get pregnant.

It makes sense why we have laws restricting sexual relationships with teenagers, sure, but the notion of that has barely been around for a century. So we shouldn't look down on someone as being a deviant because they see a 16-year-old girl and think she's attractive.

The laws and such that we have in place are good and, really, the age of consent should nationally be at 18 with "Romeo and Juliet" laws allowing for a slight age difference between couples.

But we need to understand the difference in how we treat people who look at children inappropriately and people who look at teenagers. Because in the case of the latter, overall, the only difference between the older and the younger is a numerical representation of how long someone has been on this planet, on the outside they both exhibit all of the characteristics of and adult.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Well, I think it's important to make a distinction between what is deviant behavior of someone looking at at child sexually and looking at someone going, or has gone through, puberty sexually.

In the eyes of the law acting on such desires is wrong, sure, but as a society we should understand the difference and distinction between the two. Looking at a child, someone young enough that they still spend the whole day in the same classroom, is wrong and sick. Without question.

In both cases, someone is engaging in sexual activity with someone who cannot consent. Essentially, you are arguing that we distinguish the two because, I guess, we don't want to make ephebophiles feel bad by calling them pedos?

When we start talking about teenagers we get into more and more gray areas. Someone who gives a 16-year-old girl a second glance shouldn't be looked down on as a deviant or pervert. (Again, we're just talking about looking here.) A 14-16 year-old girl is likely to be menstruating, regularly or not, has developed breasts and hips and likely at an age where she's wearing more glamorous makeup and is managing body-hair.

We shouldn't think of someone who looks at a teenage girl as being a pedophile or anywhere near one. Because such a person is not looking at a child but is, in effect, looking at a young woman. We live in a society that, sure, places an arbitrary age on when a teenager can consent to sex but it was just a century ago a 16-year-old girl likely would already be in a serious relationship if not married. We could even argue there's a biological reason females begin their reproductive life in their teens and it ends in their 50s. Society has narrowed and narrowed the acceptable time-frame for a woman to get pregnant.

How in the world is this relevant to Roman Polanski drugging and raping a 13-year-old?

It makes sense why we have laws restricting sexual relationships with teenagers, sure, but the notion of that has barely been around for a century. So we shouldn't look down on someone as being a deviant because they see a 16-year-old girl and think she's attractive.

No one gives a shit about that. If you have sex with her in a state where that's illegal, on the other hand...

The laws and such that we have in place are good and, really, the age of consent should nationally be at 18 with "Romeo and Juliet" laws allowing for a slight age difference between couples.

I doubt most people have any issue with this.

But we need to understand the difference in how we treat people who look at children inappropriately and people who look at teenagers. Because in the case of the latter, overall, the only difference between the older and the younger is a numerical representation of how long someone has been on this planet, on the outside they both exhibit all of the characteristics of and adult.

I suppose I don't find myself overly concerned with the feelings of people who think it would be OK to have sex with adolescents.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I used to think it was worth arguing the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophila, but frankly, it doesn't make much difference. It's no less wrong for someone to rape/molest an adolescent than to do the same to a pre-pubescent child, so what's the point in hairsplitting the terminology?

Exactly.

 

[doubleohfive]

Actor Stephen Collins Admits to Molesting Underage Girls

Variety wrote:
“7th Heaven” star Stephen Collins has admitted to molesting three underage girls decades ago.

“Forty years ago, I did something terribly wrong that I deeply regret,” Collins told People magazine in a statement. “I have been working to atone for it ever since. As difficult as this is, I want people to know the truth.”

“On the recording, I described events that took place 20, 32 and 40 years ago,” Collins said in the statement. “The publication of the recording has resulted in assumptions and innuendos about what I did that go far beyond what actually occurred.”

“I have not had an impulse to act out in any such way” in the last 20 years, he explained.

Collins is set for a confessional sit-down with Katie Couric on Friday that will stream on Yahoo and air on ABC’s “20/20.”

 

[Lynx]

How do you blow a Decker up?
With a Photon Tor-Paedo.

Maybe ILM can replace him with alien maybe Jar, Jar Binks.

Now, that picture really made my day!
I would love to see that scenario in some special edited DVD of that movie!

 

[OmahaStar]

^He raped a 13 year old. I'd say any distinction is at best blurred.

It's a blurry area but it's important to remember that a pedophile has sexual attraction to a child, a child being someone who has not begun puberty.

Someone who has gone through (or is going through) puberty is not a child (biologically speaking, at least; since they're entering sexual maturity and their reproductive age) and therefore likely wouldn't interest a true pedophile.

Someone who's attracted to someone who's going through puberty but hasn't yet reached sexual maturity is an ephebophile though someone in their very early teens just beginning puberty is arguably in a very, very, gray area when weighing ephebophilia or pedophilia. But it still can be argued if the girl is starting to develop breasts, hips, etc. they're not strictly a child and aren't likely to interest someone who has true pedophilia.

All moot, of course, since society has set its own lines and boundaries of what is acceptable legally and socially and generally no matter how developed a teenager may be if they've not yet reached the legal age of consent then any interest in them is sort of creepy and even then it still is depending on the age difference.

There's also a huge difference between looking at a fully developed teenage girl with a pique of interest in a "an appealing form" sort of way and taking inappropriate actions with someone who doesn't have the mental or sexual maturity to deal with adult encounters and situations.

I don't know about others, but the fact that a guy in his 30s is arguing that it's perfectly fine to go after anyone who has started puberty ... that's creepy, at best. Trying to argue that it's not being a pedo, it's being some other thing ... draws further attention to it. It's creepy, but it's also illegal as hell. I see no difference in what you're arguing and the folks behind Nambla.

I'm not familiar with the Roman Polanski case but I'd argue he's certainly flirting with the pedophilia line when have inappropriate interaction with a 13-year-old-girl.

You're on the Internet. Google it. In case you can't be bothered ... He drugged a 13 year old and then, when she was fully out of it, raped her. Then, he was caught. He was prosecuted and convicted. Before he could begin his sentence, he fled the country. He's been a wanted fugitive for decades.

He is not "flirting with the pedophilia line" or having "inappropriate interaction." He drugged and raped a 13 year old. There is no way to make this OK. Arguing otherwise makes me wonder why you're defending his actions. Is there something you're telling us?

 

[bigdaddy]

People defending child rapists.... Never thought I'd see the day.

If a girl starts puberty at 10 does that mean I can have sex with her at 11 an not be pedophile? The answer is clearly a no! If it's not a no to you go seek out some help.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

People defending child rapists.... Never thought I'd see the day.

If a girl starts puberty at 10 does that mean I can have sex with her at 11 an not be pedophile? The answer is clearly a no! If it's not a no to you go seek out some help.

Seems Trekker is arguing that, if she's had her first period, then it's not quite as bad if you have sex with her.

 

[Squiggy]

Saying there is a technical difference between pedophile and not a pedophile is accurate because words mean something.

It doesn't excuse his actions nor does it defend child rapists. Get a grip.

And yes...actually it technically does mean you're not a pedophile if you're sexually attracted to someone who is pubescent. Age doesn't matter. Sexual maturity does when it comes to the definition of the word. It's a pedantic delineation, but an accurate one.

It's still abhorrent though.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I wouldn't argue that biological attraction to adolescents is unnatural, because it's not. Sexual maturity == fertility == sexual attraction. That isn't the issue.

My issue is Trekker trying to carve out a distinction between "creepo" and "non-creepo" by taking adolescent-diddlers out of the "pedophile" set. I don't care whether you want to call them pedophiles or something else, but advocating on their behalf is fucking gross.

Your body may tell you "that 14-year-old is hot" but your brain should be telling you "she is way too young and immature and I am an adult and not only would this be illegal as hell, it would make me a fucking predator." Trekker seems to be arguing that lacking the latter mental cue is normal. It isn't.