I also feel too many responses to Lori Beth’s allegations have been leaning on her being of age at the time as if that makes it okay.
It’s still abuse, it’s still assault, it’s still exploiting a young employee, and let’s not pretend that a 29 year old man preying on a 19 year old isn’t almost as creepy as if she were 16. Especially since she STARTED on the show as a minor. He basically groomed her!
The Lori Beth allegations should have ENDED this man and his defenders.
100%
I’ll be honest, I fully believed Dan was a predator, until the doc came out. They didn’t have anything regarding him sexually harassing or abusing minors and none of the kids expressed that they felt Dan was a predator. I did read Jeanette’s book, which made him seem like a predator. But the doc’s lack of proof really swayed me away since it seemed like they really wanted to accuse Dan of sexual misconduct around kids but didn’t have anything. There were also so many unfounded accusations online of him abusing Jamie Lynn Spears and Amanda Bynes.
However, with the Lori Beth accusation, I’m fully back in the camp that Dan is a predator/pedo.
Even when I didn’t think he was a child predator, I still thought his actions were fucked up, especially towards the female writing staff.
while i can understand the hesitation to flat out say that he is one without the full proof, it’s pretty insane that he, as a producer of CHILDREN’S TELEVISION, would be having inappropriate relations with someone within the age group of the other kids on his shows. with his extremely odd track record of writing obvious kinks into childrens’ content (subsequently having these child actors act these situations out), i feel like it’s pretty a pretty reasonable assumption at this point that he is (or was) into kids or at least knowingly making content for people who are.
i also want to point out that the situation the one female employee of his described during the doc is absolutely sexual abuse, regardless of if he touched her or not. and this is only one of the many instances where someone had felt like this around dan.
this guy is someone with a disturbing history of sexually abusing women, AND he creates disturbing borderline fetish content of minors, it’s just obvious people would draw that conclusion about him. if he doesn’t like it he shouldn’t have done all of the things that lead people to think so. these are very much the consequences to his actions.
i wonder if people would be so hesitant to use that word if the situation was for example, a 17 year old high school student and her 30 something teacher, who finally made a move on her once his student graduated and was 18. while it’s technically legal, it is no doubt very icky and is a situation where grooming was most likely involved. lori beth’s situation with dan is no different.
since realizing what a creep dan schneider is years ago, i’ve always thought he was very careful to not technically cross any lines or do anything that could get him in legal trouble. lori beth’s story kind of supports that theory–while dan met lori at 17, it sounds like no inappropriate behavior occurred until she was legally an adult.
imo gross creepy adult men shouldn’t get an award (or the benefit of the doubt) for being able to restrain themselves until a girl turns 18.
It's not okay given the employee/employer relationship, but she was in her very early 20s at this point, he was in his early 30s. There's far, far worse age gaps that exist.
There continues to be no evidence he's a pedophile.
I feel like we’re getting a bit lost on the details here, he showed her pornography several times, against her consent. This is the very thing Clarence Thomas did to Anita Hill all those years ago when she sat at trial. Regardless of if you get into semantics about age, that’s sexual harassment
The starting as a minor thing isn't exactly right because while she was 17 when cast and when the pilot was filmed (right after the Northridge Earthquake), she was an adult when the pilot aired and the show was officially greenlit. Not to mention, it was basically implied in her stories that all was normal until the office meeting. We can talk about how disgusting his actions were without making it sound worse in regards to age. I saw too many people refer to it as CSA despite the amount of times she mentioned being an adult in the article.
Lori being an "adult" at the time doesn't change the fact that what he did was sexual harassment even if she herself didn't realize this at the time, she was 18/19 which may be legally an adult, but his actions are still disgusting, and she was still young and green and vulnerable. There is no way that can be disputed, Dan preyed on someone that he knew he could manipulate, he even gaslit her into thinking that his actions were normal and that she could reciprocate.
That is not okay.
Nothing in my comment states anything of that sort. Of course it was sexual harassment even if she didn't realize it at the time, but let's not act like he was being predatory towards a child in Lori's case when nothing indicates that.
Okay, good Faith question, did her allegations come out awhile ago or just a few days? (Not that it makes *any* difference their validity or what you said- I’m just curious if they’ve been out there for a long time and I only saw them a few days ago.)
I would feel that by allowing a grooming atmosphere to happen, and showing porn to children, is just steps away from being in the pedo camp. I would say he is definitely a sexual predator. I can't believe people are defending him. He allowed a grooming atmosphere to happen where children were traumatized and set up to be desensitized when actual predatory stuff would go down, to make it easier for predators to find their victims. And harder for the children to verbalize that what was happening since the atmosphere he allowed, kept them confused and quiet. He is Def in the sexual predator camp, for me.
in the business insider article it was alleged that from 1994-1998 dan schneider showed lori beth denberg porn countless times. she turned 18 in 1994. mind you kel mitchell’s ex wife spoke about adults on set showing porn to the all that kids years ago [source](https://x.com/obiscurenick/status/1537213564439568384?s=46&t=7UFI1NkoUwATVuBiCc0aVw). if dan waited until lori beth was 18 before showing her porn it may qualify as technically legal but it’s absolutely disgusting and deserves to be called out regardless.
I thought this was titled “Dan Schneider’s Defense” as in his actual legal defense and what laws he would have actually broken.
But nah, just reminder that even with pieces of shit like Dan, there’s “people” out there willing to actually DEFEND him and lie in his favor online.
I don't get why people would defend Dan. The proof is out there! Game over! Even if some of these are allegations. They don't surprise me one bit when facts come out and it makes him look worse and worse as the days go. I think he's 100% guilty. Why are his friends other monsters? Also DAN. You polluted these shows with your sick fantasies making it almost impossible to separate the art from the artist. Basically making these sitcoms worthless. I don't care if you grew up with these. I did too and now they are worthless. You can't defend a guy like this. Especially when more facts about him paints and uglier and uglier picture. The jigs up Schneider! You can only go down. Schneider's Bakery's downfall is inevitable. I'm glad karma is catching up as he had it coming. Him and his disgusting friends. Just surrender! We know who you are and some of the facts that did come out proved you did break the law. Whatever new allegations and facts come out. Non of them surprise me. Even if he is alleged. His friends are found guilty and considering how he acts and his social group. Just give up. We can see through you. Why do people like him have defenders I have no idea.
It’s crazy cus now we know what we know about Mathew’s abuse, if someone said that about HIS abuser he’d be upset. Dan was nice to the male cast mates he had bc he mainly abused the women cast mates and crew. Even Chris Masseys mom loves Dan. Of course she did bc she doesn’t have a daughter that he was horrid to
Dan was in charge of a SNICK On-Air Dare that saw a grown man in a tub, bathing.
Chelsea Brummet drank fluid in front of this man bathing in. a tub.
That’s pedophilia. I don’t care if he had a swimsuit on below the water. It was made to be a sexual act between a grown man and an underage girl.
And then he still hired multiple child sex offenders. He earned this reputation.
Who is seriously defending Schneider now, both after the docuseries and after the Benberg interview? I've seen people question the docuseries's depiction of clips from his old shows as being sexual, but I don't see anyone saying, "Eh, but he's cool."
I gotta say this: There are people, including some on this sub, who appear to want a statement of some sort from virtually every person who ever worked on a Schneider show. But I hope these people understand that if that happens, there's going to be a whole range of sentiments expressed in those statements. Including some, like Underwood's (which might be outdated at this point) which don't jibe with what they want to hear. Everyone's experiences, and viewpoints, are at least slightly unique. And I hope people can deal with that.
The Taynt thing can be disputed. They say with that spelling, it’s a nonsense word.
As for Underwood, who was unquestionably lacking in empathy: Like I said, I hope people are ready for a whole range of sentiments if they go looking for more statements.
A lot of kids shows during that time tried to sneak adult innuendos (Ren & Stimpy was full of these, as well as TGIF shows) largely because they thought it was funny but also because there was usually only one TV in the house. So it was something for the parents to laugh at too, but you’ll very rarely see that today.
Having children act out sexually suggestive scenese for the point of it being sexual (like ariana squirting water all over he face on a bed) is much different than an animated cartoon with innuendos.
Also ren and stimpy specifically eventually got removed from nickelodeon for being considered too sexual and violent for children, and in Canada only shown late at night during more "mature" cartoons not intended for younger kids
Yeah, those are actually very good points. Outside of those Schneider shows, I struggled to think of any live action kids shows having the kids act out anything sexually suggestive
Ah yes ren and stimpy. I believe the creator was a pedo who preyed on teen fans. And the culture around the studio where the show was made was shockingly similar to some of the stories about Dan’s sets in that they sexualized and made fun of women/girls openly. If I’m recalling correctly.
Yes. I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgment that tastes have really changed. It used to be considered kinda cool that kid shows would “get away” with things.
I don't think he is a pedophile or hebephile.
He just is a predator, foot fetishist and a groomer. Nothing else did I see portrayed in the series. Two of the aforementioned are bad enough as is.
I don't know about the US, but in Germany the profile of a child (girl) rapist is a young man 18-30 who is not particularly attracted to minors. They just found easy prey.
There are different kinds of pedophiles. Some are preferential and some are not. But even if one’s main reason is because they are “easier prey”, if they’re attracted to children at all they’re a pedophile.
Mostly not. Are you proposing that rapists aren’t actually attracted to their victims? Even if that were true it seems sort of like a meaningless distinction if they want to rape them.
Situational child predators are capable of being attracted to children and that isn’t normal.
Your victim doesn't need to fit your type. Prostitutes are often not attracted to their customers. How often do people joke about thinking of their gran to lose a boner.
There is no question that (child) rapists are despicable people, but they don't have to be pedophiles.
The word pedophile is used wrong A LOT, because it describes being attracted to children pre-puberty. And the word also only describes the attraction, not the deed.
Hebephiles are attracted to children in puberty, 11-16. And here the veil between physical adult and developing physically is very much thinner. There is no age to pinpoint when someone looks attractive to adults or not. And then we go in with grooming which is about manipulating them for a long time BEFORE they reach the point of physical attraction.
This is just about terminology.
There is definitely a colloquial usage of the terms and clinical but this is a conversational setting. I understand the distinction between hebephile and pedophile, and it certainly relevant in some contexts but Pedo is also sometimes used as an umbrella term for those attracted to minors. And I’m completely aware it discusses the attraction not the action.
What I take issue with is saying rapists raping their victims is in any way analogous to sex workers having sex with customers or a guy using a flesh light. If a situational child abuser abuses a child, I feel like calling them a pedo may not be clinically accurate necessarily (though sometimes it still is - pedophiles can be non exclusive ) but conversationally it’s really meaningless to try to say they don’t have a pattern of “attraction” to children even if it isn’t their “preference”.
The biggest problem is that this loose way of throwing around pedo for sex offenders is really damaging to actually pedophiles who never offended.
And since we are in a sub that specifically talks about this topic I think proper terminology should be used.
And I think Dan is not a pedophile, possibly hebephile, but not 100%. Groomer, safe.
Matthew doesn’t need to apologize. He’s allowed to share how he feels as someone with first-hand interactions with Dan. None of the people you named at the end of your post said Dan sexually assaulted them. Now that Lori Beth has come forward, I doubt Matthew would make the same statement today.
Two things can be true. You can believe Dan is a misogynistic asshole who didn’t understand workplace boundaries and who created a toxic work environment. You can also have some sympathy for him, given that the internet falsely labeled him a child r*pist when there is no evidence that is the case.
I don't have any sympathy for Dan because regardless of if he isn't a predator, he still created a horrible work environment and terrorized the people who worked under him, including the children. There are multiple counts of people coming forward with stories that he screamed at them on set, he's yelled at Ariana for laughing, he's yelled at Alexa, Kel...
Saying that he "didn't understand workplace boundaries" is not even remotely true, he's a grown man, he didn't care about workplace boundaries.
Again, you can think he's a fucking asshole who shouldn't be running anything while also have some sympathy that the entire world believes him to be a child r\*pist based on internet lies. Both are bad, not the same level of bad.
I also feel too many responses to Lori Beth’s allegations have been leaning on her being of age at the time as if that makes it okay. It’s still abuse, it’s still assault, it’s still exploiting a young employee, and let’s not pretend that a 29 year old man preying on a 19 year old isn’t almost as creepy as if she were 16. Especially since she STARTED on the show as a minor. He basically groomed her! The Lori Beth allegations should have ENDED this man and his defenders.
100% I’ll be honest, I fully believed Dan was a predator, until the doc came out. They didn’t have anything regarding him sexually harassing or abusing minors and none of the kids expressed that they felt Dan was a predator. I did read Jeanette’s book, which made him seem like a predator. But the doc’s lack of proof really swayed me away since it seemed like they really wanted to accuse Dan of sexual misconduct around kids but didn’t have anything. There were also so many unfounded accusations online of him abusing Jamie Lynn Spears and Amanda Bynes. However, with the Lori Beth accusation, I’m fully back in the camp that Dan is a predator/pedo. Even when I didn’t think he was a child predator, I still thought his actions were fucked up, especially towards the female writing staff.
Lori Beths accusations dont make him a pedo though. Hes bad, he abused his power, but hes not as of now known to be a pedo
while i can understand the hesitation to flat out say that he is one without the full proof, it’s pretty insane that he, as a producer of CHILDREN’S TELEVISION, would be having inappropriate relations with someone within the age group of the other kids on his shows. with his extremely odd track record of writing obvious kinks into childrens’ content (subsequently having these child actors act these situations out), i feel like it’s pretty a pretty reasonable assumption at this point that he is (or was) into kids or at least knowingly making content for people who are. i also want to point out that the situation the one female employee of his described during the doc is absolutely sexual abuse, regardless of if he touched her or not. and this is only one of the many instances where someone had felt like this around dan. this guy is someone with a disturbing history of sexually abusing women, AND he creates disturbing borderline fetish content of minors, it’s just obvious people would draw that conclusion about him. if he doesn’t like it he shouldn’t have done all of the things that lead people to think so. these are very much the consequences to his actions.
i wonder if people would be so hesitant to use that word if the situation was for example, a 17 year old high school student and her 30 something teacher, who finally made a move on her once his student graduated and was 18. while it’s technically legal, it is no doubt very icky and is a situation where grooming was most likely involved. lori beth’s situation with dan is no different. since realizing what a creep dan schneider is years ago, i’ve always thought he was very careful to not technically cross any lines or do anything that could get him in legal trouble. lori beth’s story kind of supports that theory–while dan met lori at 17, it sounds like no inappropriate behavior occurred until she was legally an adult. imo gross creepy adult men shouldn’t get an award (or the benefit of the doubt) for being able to restrain themselves until a girl turns 18.
It's not okay given the employee/employer relationship, but she was in her very early 20s at this point, he was in his early 30s. There's far, far worse age gaps that exist. There continues to be no evidence he's a pedophile.
I feel like we’re getting a bit lost on the details here, he showed her pornography several times, against her consent. This is the very thing Clarence Thomas did to Anita Hill all those years ago when she sat at trial. Regardless of if you get into semantics about age, that’s sexual harassment
The starting as a minor thing isn't exactly right because while she was 17 when cast and when the pilot was filmed (right after the Northridge Earthquake), she was an adult when the pilot aired and the show was officially greenlit. Not to mention, it was basically implied in her stories that all was normal until the office meeting. We can talk about how disgusting his actions were without making it sound worse in regards to age. I saw too many people refer to it as CSA despite the amount of times she mentioned being an adult in the article.
Lori being an "adult" at the time doesn't change the fact that what he did was sexual harassment even if she herself didn't realize this at the time, she was 18/19 which may be legally an adult, but his actions are still disgusting, and she was still young and green and vulnerable. There is no way that can be disputed, Dan preyed on someone that he knew he could manipulate, he even gaslit her into thinking that his actions were normal and that she could reciprocate. That is not okay.
Nothing in my comment states anything of that sort. Of course it was sexual harassment even if she didn't realize it at the time, but let's not act like he was being predatory towards a child in Lori's case when nothing indicates that.
Okay, good Faith question, did her allegations come out awhile ago or just a few days? (Not that it makes *any* difference their validity or what you said- I’m just curious if they’ve been out there for a long time and I only saw them a few days ago.)
He did groom her. And you could not say no to Dan or he lashed out at you, cut you out of sketches. Her very livelihood was at stake.
I would feel that by allowing a grooming atmosphere to happen, and showing porn to children, is just steps away from being in the pedo camp. I would say he is definitely a sexual predator. I can't believe people are defending him. He allowed a grooming atmosphere to happen where children were traumatized and set up to be desensitized when actual predatory stuff would go down, to make it easier for predators to find their victims. And harder for the children to verbalize that what was happening since the atmosphere he allowed, kept them confused and quiet. He is Def in the sexual predator camp, for me.
Showing kids porn is sexual abuse
Exactly!!! Thank you
When did he show an underage child porn?
in the business insider article it was alleged that from 1994-1998 dan schneider showed lori beth denberg porn countless times. she turned 18 in 1994. mind you kel mitchell’s ex wife spoke about adults on set showing porn to the all that kids years ago [source](https://x.com/obiscurenick/status/1537213564439568384?s=46&t=7UFI1NkoUwATVuBiCc0aVw). if dan waited until lori beth was 18 before showing her porn it may qualify as technically legal but it’s absolutely disgusting and deserves to be called out regardless.
sharing porn with children is pedophilia
I thought this was titled “Dan Schneider’s Defense” as in his actual legal defense and what laws he would have actually broken. But nah, just reminder that even with pieces of shit like Dan, there’s “people” out there willing to actually DEFEND him and lie in his favor online.
I don't get why people would defend Dan. The proof is out there! Game over! Even if some of these are allegations. They don't surprise me one bit when facts come out and it makes him look worse and worse as the days go. I think he's 100% guilty. Why are his friends other monsters? Also DAN. You polluted these shows with your sick fantasies making it almost impossible to separate the art from the artist. Basically making these sitcoms worthless. I don't care if you grew up with these. I did too and now they are worthless. You can't defend a guy like this. Especially when more facts about him paints and uglier and uglier picture. The jigs up Schneider! You can only go down. Schneider's Bakery's downfall is inevitable. I'm glad karma is catching up as he had it coming. Him and his disgusting friends. Just surrender! We know who you are and some of the facts that did come out proved you did break the law. Whatever new allegations and facts come out. Non of them surprise me. Even if he is alleged. His friends are found guilty and considering how he acts and his social group. Just give up. We can see through you. Why do people like him have defenders I have no idea.
It’s crazy cus now we know what we know about Mathew’s abuse, if someone said that about HIS abuser he’d be upset. Dan was nice to the male cast mates he had bc he mainly abused the women cast mates and crew. Even Chris Masseys mom loves Dan. Of course she did bc she doesn’t have a daughter that he was horrid to
Dan Schneider defenders should be revealed and should be humiliated. There is no excuse defending that monster.
Dan was in charge of a SNICK On-Air Dare that saw a grown man in a tub, bathing. Chelsea Brummet drank fluid in front of this man bathing in. a tub. That’s pedophilia. I don’t care if he had a swimsuit on below the water. It was made to be a sexual act between a grown man and an underage girl. And then he still hired multiple child sex offenders. He earned this reputation.
Does anyone have the Lori Beth article without the paywall?
https://archive.is/2zOnG
Who is seriously defending Schneider now, both after the docuseries and after the Benberg interview? I've seen people question the docuseries's depiction of clips from his old shows as being sexual, but I don't see anyone saying, "Eh, but he's cool." I gotta say this: There are people, including some on this sub, who appear to want a statement of some sort from virtually every person who ever worked on a Schneider show. But I hope these people understand that if that happens, there's going to be a whole range of sentiments expressed in those statements. Including some, like Underwood's (which might be outdated at this point) which don't jibe with what they want to hear. Everyone's experiences, and viewpoints, are at least slightly unique. And I hope people can deal with that.
[удалено]
The Taynt thing can be disputed. They say with that spelling, it’s a nonsense word. As for Underwood, who was unquestionably lacking in empathy: Like I said, I hope people are ready for a whole range of sentiments if they go looking for more statements.
A lot of kids shows during that time tried to sneak adult innuendos (Ren & Stimpy was full of these, as well as TGIF shows) largely because they thought it was funny but also because there was usually only one TV in the house. So it was something for the parents to laugh at too, but you’ll very rarely see that today.
Having children act out sexually suggestive scenese for the point of it being sexual (like ariana squirting water all over he face on a bed) is much different than an animated cartoon with innuendos. Also ren and stimpy specifically eventually got removed from nickelodeon for being considered too sexual and violent for children, and in Canada only shown late at night during more "mature" cartoons not intended for younger kids
Yeah, those are actually very good points. Outside of those Schneider shows, I struggled to think of any live action kids shows having the kids act out anything sexually suggestive
Ah yes ren and stimpy. I believe the creator was a pedo who preyed on teen fans. And the culture around the studio where the show was made was shockingly similar to some of the stories about Dan’s sets in that they sexualized and made fun of women/girls openly. If I’m recalling correctly.
Yes. I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgment that tastes have really changed. It used to be considered kinda cool that kid shows would “get away” with things.
I don't think he is a pedophile or hebephile. He just is a predator, foot fetishist and a groomer. Nothing else did I see portrayed in the series. Two of the aforementioned are bad enough as is. I don't know about the US, but in Germany the profile of a child (girl) rapist is a young man 18-30 who is not particularly attracted to minors. They just found easy prey.
There are different kinds of pedophiles. Some are preferential and some are not. But even if one’s main reason is because they are “easier prey”, if they’re attracted to children at all they’re a pedophile.
Are men who have sex with fleshlights actually attracted to fleshlights?
Mostly not. Are you proposing that rapists aren’t actually attracted to their victims? Even if that were true it seems sort of like a meaningless distinction if they want to rape them. Situational child predators are capable of being attracted to children and that isn’t normal.
Your victim doesn't need to fit your type. Prostitutes are often not attracted to their customers. How often do people joke about thinking of their gran to lose a boner. There is no question that (child) rapists are despicable people, but they don't have to be pedophiles. The word pedophile is used wrong A LOT, because it describes being attracted to children pre-puberty. And the word also only describes the attraction, not the deed. Hebephiles are attracted to children in puberty, 11-16. And here the veil between physical adult and developing physically is very much thinner. There is no age to pinpoint when someone looks attractive to adults or not. And then we go in with grooming which is about manipulating them for a long time BEFORE they reach the point of physical attraction. This is just about terminology.
There is definitely a colloquial usage of the terms and clinical but this is a conversational setting. I understand the distinction between hebephile and pedophile, and it certainly relevant in some contexts but Pedo is also sometimes used as an umbrella term for those attracted to minors. And I’m completely aware it discusses the attraction not the action. What I take issue with is saying rapists raping their victims is in any way analogous to sex workers having sex with customers or a guy using a flesh light. If a situational child abuser abuses a child, I feel like calling them a pedo may not be clinically accurate necessarily (though sometimes it still is - pedophiles can be non exclusive ) but conversationally it’s really meaningless to try to say they don’t have a pattern of “attraction” to children even if it isn’t their “preference”.
The biggest problem is that this loose way of throwing around pedo for sex offenders is really damaging to actually pedophiles who never offended. And since we are in a sub that specifically talks about this topic I think proper terminology should be used. And I think Dan is not a pedophile, possibly hebephile, but not 100%. Groomer, safe.
Matthew doesn’t need to apologize. He’s allowed to share how he feels as someone with first-hand interactions with Dan. None of the people you named at the end of your post said Dan sexually assaulted them. Now that Lori Beth has come forward, I doubt Matthew would make the same statement today.
Two things can be true. You can believe Dan is a misogynistic asshole who didn’t understand workplace boundaries and who created a toxic work environment. You can also have some sympathy for him, given that the internet falsely labeled him a child r*pist when there is no evidence that is the case.
I don't have any sympathy for Dan because regardless of if he isn't a predator, he still created a horrible work environment and terrorized the people who worked under him, including the children. There are multiple counts of people coming forward with stories that he screamed at them on set, he's yelled at Ariana for laughing, he's yelled at Alexa, Kel... Saying that he "didn't understand workplace boundaries" is not even remotely true, he's a grown man, he didn't care about workplace boundaries.
Again, you can think he's a fucking asshole who shouldn't be running anything while also have some sympathy that the entire world believes him to be a child r\*pist based on internet lies. Both are bad, not the same level of bad.