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}
Legal terms
Date: 2009-05-15 07:17 pm (UTC)"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
Date: 2009-05-15 08:05 pm (UTC)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.