Disgusting

[ceebeegee]

On ATC, someone posted about James Barbour, asking how it was possible that he hasn't stopped working even though he "plead[ed] guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child." Quick update: The guy fondled a 15-year old girl on several occasions. It's a complicated story--apparently she specifically requested to meet with him and pressed charges a few years later before the statute of limitations had run out. From his fans' reaction, you'd think she signed away her virginity to the nearest bidder. The flood of fierce, indignant posts on ATC supporting him and excoriating her--A CHILD--was absolutely nauseating. Guys, a refresher in, oh let's call it pedophilia law. When there is sexual contact between someone who's underage and someone who's much older (Barbour was at least 20 years older--ewww! Nast-ay) the minor is innocent BY DEFINITION. Because a minor doesn't have the right to say yes. A minor doesn't have the adult sensibility to agree. This is why the burden of responsibility is ALWAYS on the adult. It doesn't matter if she stripped naked and threw herself at you--YOU are responsible if you respond. Because you're the adult. She doesn't have the capacity to say yes.

So, someone asked the question above. This, I think, is a worthwhile question--frankly I've been wondering about it myself. His career doesn't seem to have suffered at all--he did the lead in Tale of Two Cities (although it could be said that was a unique form of punishment!) and a few others, and is now in 1776 at the Paper Mill. I personally would not buy a ticket to see him--I had the opportunity to see 1776 with Michael, and would've gone if I could've, but not to see him. I would certainly never buy a ticket where I thought he was the headliner. I do agree with the reasoning that a person can pay their debt to society and move on--my problem is that he and his lawyer practiced a particularly "blame the victim" style of defense, wherein she was called a gold-digger. His lawyer acted appallingly. No, I don't want to hear that he was only acting as a good defense lawyer should. There are ethical and unethical ways to defend your client. Smearing the victim is despicable. Basically I just get a very slimey feeling from the guy, I strongly disapprove of his recent actions, and I would act on those feelings.

However I concede that others might not feel the same way--they might truly believe he has served his debt to society, or that he has a right to earn a living. These are valid arguments. What bothers me are the several posts that say, in effect "how dare you even bring this up?" Don't talk about it. This entire discussion should be nullified. "Talk about a topic that's been beaten to death..." and "Why is this still being brought up???" (Well, you responded, so clearly it's still relevant.) Somebody actually posted (it's since been deleted--ha!) "STOP YOUR VENDETTA. It's despicable. STOP IT." The hell? How is an honest question a "vendetta"? How about a respectful exchange of views? How about a thoughtful counter-argument? Oh, I forgot, one of the mighty heroes has slipped, a la Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant and Roman Polanski, so the fanboys and girls have to rise squealishly to their defense and attack the girl in question. Boys will be boys, you know--that lying bitch was just after his money.

And in keeping with the earlier posts, someone just wrote "someone on this board has an animus against this performer....I might add that in our sex-drenched culture a calculating 16-year-old is not exactly a 'child.'" Lolita lives and breathes! That manipulative temptress FORCED him to molest her, she made herself IRRESISTIBLE. How could any man be expected to act like a responsible adult when a sex-drenched 16-year-old (ENNNNH! Wrong, she was 15. Thanks for playing!) put herself in his way, with her alluring, man-weakening ways. Those crazy teenagers. It's kind of fascinating, the moral and ethical contortions on display--anything to attack that gold-digging whore, anything to absolve the 40-year-old married man of responsibility. The responsibility he accepted when he pled guilty to the laws that make this a civilized country, as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia, where children of 8 can marry.

If I were registered on ATC, I would post that as well. And I applaud the poster who had the courage to brave the fans. Because no, it hasn't been neatly categorized and resolved and tucked away. This case was just settled a few years ago, and if someone wants to bring it up, more power to them. I just love how we're all "oooh, sex offenders are sick individuals who should have to register and wear the scarlet letter"...until it turns out to be R. Kelly. Or Kobe Bryant. Or James Barbour.

Comments

[mollyx.livejournal.com]

Tell me why I need to get on this thing again.

I think you already know how I feel about this.
I'm sorry, but when work has the potential to put your child in a precarious position, like say, being in a room with an admitted molester, this is NOT something that should just be buried away.
And yes, this whole "he couldn't help himself" claptrap grates on me to no end.

A grown-ass man cannot "defend" himself against the wiles of a 15 year old girl. (Let's go with this scenario, since that's the one they want to paint it.)
I did a show where I had a 16 year-old girl attempt to tease, seduce and manipulate the men in the show.
For the most part, they're clumsy at it, okay? Delilah, they ain't.
Transparency is the key word here.
They're just starting to test out their "sexual power." Do not tell me that a grown man is incapable of saying, "no" to a clumsy little girl's attempt at seduction. Hell, I'm still working out the kinks on how to seduce somebody and I'm old and married.

I better not catch James Barbour on the street.
I might give him the look my mother gives people she don't like.
One sideways glance, and she scorches the earth so that nothing will grow again.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

For the most part, they're clumsy at it, okay? Delilah, they ain't.

Thank you! Lolita is a myth--the stereotype of Lolita is that she's this smokin' hot mid-teens jailbait, a la Amy Fisher (or Sue Lyon, for that matter). Ever read the book? Dolores Haze (Lolita) is grubby and ungraceful and TWELVE. The reason Humbert lusts after her is because he's a pedophile. He kidnaps her and steals her childhood, forcing her to travel all over the country. It's not romantic; she's not a temptress, she's a victim. She did nothing to bring this upon herself, he's a pervert.

The adult is always responsible.

[justducky2204.livejournal.com]

I don't know the whole story but here are some general thoughts and experiences on the subject...

If you can charge a 14-year-old as an adult for murder, a 15-year-old can give consent...especially if she is the seductress. (If she is the seduced, that's another story.)

I've had pregnant girls as young as 10 as patients...you would not have known they were 10 looking at them and hearing them speak. Some of them I suspect of having more sexual experience than I do...and I'm not exactly innocent.

When I worked as a lifeguard (in an upper-middle class town) we had a problem with kids as young as 10 and 11 giving blowjobs and engaging in other adult sexual activity on pool property...and acting as if it was the norm.

I can also tell you that it wasn't "clumsy" at all when a girl who later turned out to be 13 came on to one of our lifeguards...he went on a date with her and nothing happened...by his choice (he was very shy and a bit uptight) not hers. She tried to get in his pants and he panicked. Not in a million years would ANY of us have guessed she was any younger than 17 the way she was built (and in the string bikini she wore!).

Another friend of mine ended up getting off on a statutory charge a few years back...she had us all fooled. They met at a club for 21 and ups that was religous about carding (I was there when they met)...she came out with us all the time to places that carded. I thought she was immature, but she was still living at home...her parents let him stay the night on multiple occasions (they dated for almost 2 years), and her parents were in on the fiction that was a student at NYU (not Dalton, where she was really going). We had no idea she wasn't an immature 23 until he dumped her for being too immature and got slapped with statutory the following week...she was 15 when they met.

Nothing excuses cheating on your spouse without the spouse's consent...but 15 is definitely old enough to be held responsible for your actions, especially the actions which you set in motion.

As I said, I don't know the whole story, and I certainly don't excuse it if he knew she was 15, but even if he did, she's just as much to blame if she initiated it. I've worked with teens my entire working career (lifeguard, swim instructor, camp counselor, nanny, after-school program, swim coach, gymnastics coach, paramedic, photography teacher, retail, tutor...and so on...). Things are much different now...

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

we had a problem with kids as young as 10 and 11 giving blowjobs and engaging in other adult sexual activity on pool property...

If a child as young as that is doing such activities, you can bet the mortgage that child has been molested. Did anyone get these children some help?

I respect your opinion, but I have to say, I don't agree at all. Statutory laws are in place for a reason--a teenager does not have the mental capacity that an adult does, regardless of how seductive they seem (or how seductive the adults wants to believe they are). Even if they really DO want it--the adult knows better, the adult knows that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child is inherently wrong, and therefore he or she is responsible for stopping it. That's the whole basis for statutory laws. I've worked with teens a lot too--shows, camp counselor, teacher, tutor. I don't think they're any different than they were. Human nature and developmental stages don't change much.

And Barbour, the 40 year old married man (EW!!!), knew she was underage.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

For the record, he was 35 or 36 and single at the time.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have no idea what happened between those two people and I’m perfectly willing to believe in the possibility of any reasonable scenario.

There are aspects to the facts that make it seem like there’s much more to the story than can legally be revealed. Barbour’s career wasn’t very eventful after Jane Eyre, the show he was starring in when the alleged events took place. The accusations were not made public until he received star-making reviews for doing A Tale of Two Cities in Florida. Speculation of a move to Broadway was built primarily on his performance. He had a once-in-a-lifetime role that gave him his best opportunity to become a bona fide, name above the title Broadway star.

And then the New York Post started convicting him with their front page headlines. He was facing the possibility of more headlines due to a long trial that could very well ruin his opportunity for legitimate stardom. Now, just for a moment, let’s say he’s not guilty of the charges. Is it reasonable to think that, given the fact that in these cases the accused is frequently presumed guilty by both the press and the public even if found not guilty by the court (which could severely harm his career) he might consider the best thing for him to do was to plead guilty to a lesser charge and quietly serve his time during the period between the closing of the Florida production and rehearsals for the Broadway transfer? I’m not saying that’s definitely what happened but I think that’s a legitimate possibility. We’ll never find out, however, because legally he cannot disclose such possible facts about the case and, even though much of the theatre community knows exactly who his accuser is, her identity is protected, shielding her from the scrutiny he receives.

I wouldn’t be so quick to label him a pedophile, simply because I don’t believe you can base the definition on an arbitrary number that changes from location to location. If they were in Canada any sexual contact between them would be perfectly legal. Does that make him a pedophile in New York but not in Canada? Would he be a pedophile if they were in New York at 11:55pm on the eve of her 17th birthday but not be a pedophile at 12:01? Yes, he would be a law-breaker, but definitely a pedophile?

We know for certain that Charles S. Dutton killed a man, served time for it, and then became a Broadway and television star. People saw him kill the man. He says it was in self defense and I have no reason not to believe him. The fact that he’s black certainly may have something to do with his conviction. I don’t know. We’ll never be able to examine the legitimacy of his alleged victim’s side of the story because he’s dead. We also won’t be able to examine the legitimacy of James Barbour’s alleged victim’s side of the story because her identity is protected. I can understand why an accuser’s identity is shielded in these cases but not giving the accused the same privilege unfairly puts that person alone in the headlines, having to defend him/herself against anonymous accusations.

I know it may seem like I’m championing his innocence but I’m just trying to examine both sides. If he broke the law, he broke the law. But I hesitate paint his as the monster many have accused him of being.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

The accusations were not made public until he received star-making reviews for doing A Tale of Two Cities in Florida.

Is your implication that the accuser waited to capitalize on his new-found fame? Because it is VERY common for victims of sexual abuse to keep quiet for years. Among other reasons, they may hesitate for fear of being blamed. Which, of course, is exactly what happened.

Another explanation may be that she repressed it or forgot it, and when she started seeing his name again, it brought it back. A third explanation could be that when it happened, she decided to sweep it under the rug, and then, revisiting the events a few years later and being presumably more mature, changed her mind.

Would he be a pedophile if they were in New York at 11:55pm on the eve of her 17th birthday but not be a pedophile at 12:01?

This is quibbling. Come on. She was 15.

We also won’t be able to examine the legitimacy of James Barbour’s alleged victim’s side of the story because her identity is protected.

But this would only matter if she had agency. She didn't, she was 15. He admitted to having inappropriate contact with her--no matter what he would like to claim she provoked, he is still at fault by definition. Statutory laws exist for a reason--a child is not capable of giving informed consent.

Also, frankly, his loathesome behavior when the allegations first surfaced, his refusal to act like--well, a man, an adult--and the way he and his lawyer smeared the girl--that says a lot to me. Actually, that says everything. That's really why I disapprove of him so strongly. I can--just barely--see being attracted to a 15 year old girl and losing your head. It doesn't absolve you of any responsibility of course, and you should still be prosecuted if that's what the victim wants but I can imagine it in the same way I can imagine becoming so infuriated you wind up killing someone. What I find appalling are the scorched-earth tactics he and his lawyer used. They tried to paint her as a whore. Just like every so many other famous men who've been in this situation. Read the Roman Polanski imdb boards if you want your head to explode.

And I don't agree with the argument that he pled guilty to make it go away. If you plead guilty, you ARE guilty, as far as I'm concerned. You forfeit the moral right to claim innocence if you game the system like that. (Which is why I love John Proctor so much--he refused to sign his name to something of which he was not guilty. "Because it is my name! Because I can never have another!") It didn't work for Larry Craig, and it doesn't wash here.

It's interesting that your and Marion's response both revisit the case, and address that part of my post. What I was really responding to what the hysteria on ATC, the many posts that, rather than responding with a thoughtful count-argument, are all trying to shut down the argument completely. Not that this hasn't been an interesting discussion, but I was (trying to, anyway) highlight[ing] the hypocrisy of trying to stifle relevant discussion on a message board, how disgusted I was that Barbour's fans would personally attack someone who dares to bring up the subject.

And I appreciate your willingness to explore the other side, and I don't think you're championing his innocence. :)

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

Is your implication that the accuser waited to capitalize on his new-found fame?

Not at all. I'm saying a possibility for him pleading guilty to a lesser charge is that him going through a long trial could either cancel the transfer of his show to Broadway or result in him being replaced. He was on the brink of real stardom -- and he did wind up getting pretty great reviews -- but the timing of the accusation put that all in danger unless he was willing to bargain. That's not to say the timing was intentional. But it's still so.

This is quibbling. Come on. She was 15.

And if they were in Canada no crime would have been committed. If they were in Newark, where the age of consent is 16, and it was one month later there would have been no crime committed. I'm not saying that his having sexual contact with her in New York wouldn't be illegal, but I think the differences in the laws should be considered when classifying someone as a pedophile. Yes, a child is not capable of giving informed consent. But what makes someone a child in New York and not in New Jersey or in Toronto?

I don't know anything about the lawyer's attempts to smear her. Please tell.

Not everyone can be John Proctor. And by the time the accusations came out he was married. I think it's possible that any decision he made was a joint decision with his wife.
A lot of the people who post on ATC are in the industry and have contact with Barbour and/or the accuser. The impression I get is that Barbour is well-liked and the accuser isn't. Of course, I'm not going to 100% believe everything I read on an anonymous chat board, but I see a lot of support for Barbour and a lot of resentment toward the accuser in regards to things she's allegedly said about the case in public. Now for all I know, the postings against her may be lies, but I don't see anyone coming to her defense.

I'm glad we can have a civil discussion about such a disgusting subject.

Legal terms

[nswakko15.livejournal.com]

It's not playing devil's advocate, but here are the definitions for Pedophile, followed by legal connotations of it (and i thought connecting it to the wonderful thoughts in this thread made sense rather than starting a new chain):
"The word comes from the Greek paidophilia (παιδοφιλία): pais (παις, "child") and philia (φιλία, "love, friendship"). Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty), or vice versa.

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Viennese psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis. He gave the following characteristics:

* The sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only. This interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair.
* The sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only and does not include teenagers.
* The sexual interest remains over time.

Adults sexually attracted to prepubescent youths were placed into three categories by Krafft-Ebing:

* a.) pedophile
* b.) surrogate (that is, the prepubescent youths are regarded as a substitute object for a preferred, non-available adult object)
* c.) sadistic

These types have been expanded upon and updated over the years into a variety of typologies."

"In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse under sociolegal definitions of child (including both prepubescent children and adolescents younger than the local age of consent); however, not all child sexual offenders are pedophiles and not all pedophiles engage in sexual abuse of children."

I tend to lean towards the earlier definitions with the use of prepubescence. Mostly because I have been in shows and situations where I could not believe these people were under age. I've also been on the receiving end, being thought older since I was 14. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where character slander is a powerful tool (see Michael Crichton's "Disclosure"), even to the point where no one would care to know both sides, they just automatically pick a side. Either side. I mean, how would I look at this if 5-10 years down the road, she admitted to being the aggressor and he had tried to back out? Then we go to the lawyer's defense mode and we learn he had cajoled his client into agreeing to this line of attack?
just food for thought, I don't know enough facts to take a stance on this specific case.

Re: Legal terms

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

I was using the term in the general sense--there is a specific term for those who have a predilection towards young pubescent girls, though I can't remember what it is.

she admitted to being the aggressor

But that doesn't matter. That's the point of statutory laws--the child cannot give informed consent.

Unfortunately we live in a day and age where character slander is a powerful tool

I happen to agree with you--I do think that for such an explosive crime, BOTH sides should be given anonymity until and unless a conviction is achieved.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

The lawyer wanted to set up a phone line or publish her name, to encourage people who knew her, (http://gothamist.com/2006/12/21/1800_gross_idea.php) to come forward so he could use them against her in court. The judge, obviously, said no. Barbour accused her of gold-digging, of only coming forward because he'd inherited some money from his mother. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01042008/news/regionalnews/beast__i_pawed_gal__15_811048.htm) I love how he admits he knew she was 15 in the second encounter.

Also this charming tidbit:

Barbour also admitted luring the victim to his apartment by promising to introduce her to theatrical producers - and then engaging in oral sex with her. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/01/03/2008-01-03_type_casting_broadway_beast_james_barbou.html)

And this:

"She left NYU, she's working in a bakery, she's completely out of money," his lawyer Ronald Fischetti had claimed. "The motivation has to be because he's coming into money, and because he's becoming a Broadway star."

But prosecutors produced a secretly recorded tape in which Barbour referred to himself as "unethical." They also revealed that another woman has come forward accusing Barbour of sexually assaulting her in California when she was just 13.

where the age of consent is 16

As far as the moral, not legal, argument goes, that is still far too young. IMO, if you're not old enough to drink, you're not old enough to have sex with a man 20 years older. Toeing the line of the law but still pushing it is still considered sketchy behavior--look at Woody Allen. Obviously at some point the age differences equal out but that's when it's well past 15--that is, after the child has become an adult.

As far as personal connections, scroll to the bottom of the Gothamist link--someone who knows the girl and backs her. I imagine if you look around, you'll find pockets of support for both sides based on personal acquaintance, none of which really proves anything. I would take from Barbour's support on the Broadway message boards the same way I take Roman Polanski's support in imdb, or the sports fans who made their online rage very clear when Kobe Bryant was accused (her life was threatened), or those who attacked the Mike Tyson rape victim. People do not want to believe their hero has feet of clay. And did you really think people who support her are going to come to ATC? People outside the industry don't even know that board exists. Maybe they're posting elsewhere, or maybe they're keeping their mouths shut out of respect for the girl. Online support can't really be quantified.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

Yes, the lawyer's actions were objectionable, but as far as Barbour's admission goes, remember that what he admitted to was part of the plea bargain. Whether he did it or not, his admission to the actions was very possibly part of an all or nothing offer.

Also, maybe I wasn't clear before, but while the accuser may not have been a big star, at the time the case was made public she was the central character in a high-profile television commercial, she was favorably reviewed for a Broadway show and was in rehearsals for a major Off-Broadway production. She was known in the industry. It wasn't a case of Barbour being the theatre person and her being the outsider.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

So he perjured himself? He gave a lot of details for someone just gaming the system. I'm sorry, I just can't accept that interpretation. If you're are willing to assume that, then remember the prosecution said they had another victim who came forward but the statute of limitations had run out. She was 13.

If she was doing so well, why did the lawyer claim she was a destitute exploiter grabbing at his fame?

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the truth is but I do know that plea bargains can include admitting to things that you didn't exactly do. That's the bargaining. I have no idea what her financial situation was at the time. I just know she wasn't an outsider to the New York theatre community.

[son-of-ottie.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I just got an email from The York Theatre where I used to work. He's doing a mufti weekend (Th Grand Tour) there soon. I was surprised to see his name because:
A) Why would the producer of a small venue like that invite controversy?
B) He must have BALLS LIKE AN ELEPHANT to even dare show his face in the theatre again! RIGHT? Right? (right...?)
WHY hire a KNOWN slimbag, scuzz-bucket fuck-head? I'm disappointed and hope he gets his horn swaggled by some 15 year old's father in the future because child molesters don't just stop.
But ultimately all *I* could personally do is shrug and go, "Well, I ain't goin' to see THAT shit".

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

He's been working quite a bit since serving his time and has been getting very good reviews for A Tale of Two Cities (Drama Desk nomination), his cabaret show at Sardi's, playing Rutledge in 1776 and doing some one-night concert events. Being hired by the York isn't an isolated occurrence. I'll certainly defend your right to be disgusted but people I respect seem happy to work with him.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Well obviously he's keeping his nose clean, he wouldn't dare do otherwise. But that has nothing to do with his crime.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't. But son_of_ottie was surprised to see the York hired him and I just wanted to point out that he's been working quite a bit in the area since being released.