Disgusting
May. 15th, 2009 09:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeOn 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-15 04:42 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2009-05-15 05:07 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-15 05:30 pm (UTC)