James Barbour Arrested- Page 6

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:26pm

Why is the character of the accuser a factor?
What does that have to do with the situation at all?

If you are claiming she is making the story up, that is really the only way her character should play a role.

If the actions did happen, it does not matter what her sexual past is.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 03:26 PM

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:39pm

not to get all law"ish" but here's the bottom line.

A woman who is now of legal age is alledging that while she was a minor (and below the age of consent), she had sexual relations with an older man.

Everything else is speculation, opinion and in some cases "justifications"

When all the smoke clears and regardless of the scenario, the only issue here is whether or not the allegations of sex with a minor is true.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:49pm

Absolutely, Craig.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:51pm

If James wins I am sure there will be a lawsuit for slander.
AND if he does win, I hope he wins that suit.

But, alas, in the words of Craig: "It's all speculation"

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:56pm

I dunno, I am of several minds on this topic. Kind of like Mister Matt looking in one of those angle mirrors in a dressing room, ie, a LOT of minds.

First of all, like BrodyBaby, in an effort at full disclosure, let me put it this way. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, if you took all the older guys I had (various, pretty minor forms of) sex with between the ages 13 and 16 and laid them end to end, I wouldn't be at all surprised. And if we had been discovered, THEY would have gone to jail.

There was one guy in particular that I was very smitten with. I enjoyed spending time with him and we enjoyed each other's attention. But because of the time and location and my age when this happened, had we been "discovered," I can guarantee you that my experience would have been reframed by others as "rape," and I would have been encouraged to see myself as a "victim" and so frightened to death about the implications in my life at the time (people would know I was gay) that I would be easily co-erced into "testifying" that this was not something I wanted and that the man should go to prison forever for the horrible sin of pleasure. Which is, of course, one of the worst sins in our culture.

Which is to say, I sought the sex, I was ragingly desirous, and I found it. There was no internet for "predators" to find me, I went out and found them. There wasn't really a cultural incentive to scare the crap out of baby boomer parents as there is now: the message is CONSTANTLY reinforced that their children are in danger any time they aren't watching TV or buying the products advertised on TV. And the way the fear factor works is to subtly remind baby boomers of their own precocious sex and drug behaviors back when they were in their teens and to FREAK THEM OUT that their own spawn are having as good a time as they did.

So, my point, and I do have one, is that it's COMPLICATED.

And I believe it's more complicated when it's male/female than when it's male/male because of the inherent power differential.
And I would caution people to beware of easy answers, whether it's Glinda's "she MIGHT have been a HO!" stance or "the law is there TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN," when, if we're honest, we have to admit that some children are more childlike than others.

There are a couple of other factors that are murky here. I do believe that the legal definition of "sodomy" in some areas includes anything that ain't the missionary position in a heterosexual marriage. Including oral/genital contact. Somebody like Plum generally steps in and corrects me when I get these points wrong.

The other thing is that age of consent laws have historically been used to prosecute male/male encounters, and have led to things like 17 year guys getting 25 years in prison for having sex with their 15 year old boyfriends and the like. Which everyone generally agrees is "too bad" but that's the way it's got to be to protect "the children" from sawed-off-shotgun-wielding hillbillies looking to do a Deliverance reenactment with a nursery school class.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 3:56pm

Well, the question of whether our laws are appropriate or not is also up for debate.

When someone gets a class E felony on their record (with a possible 3-4 years in prison) for having sex at 11:59am the day before their 18th birthday, and at midnight, all of a sudden they have enough brains to know they won't regret it later?! That's absurd. There should be something more than the age of the individual to determine rulings.

Should people go free for this? I don't think so. Not at all. But, years in prison is far too much.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:03pm

There are certainly circumstances that need to be looked into.

There is a ridiculous standard to any "zero" tolerance situation. Such as the one touchme is considering.

It doesn't matter how childlike the children are though, the idea that becasue this girl "wanted it" it is alright, is what is nonsensical.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:07pm

Well, then, you're not REALLY convinced of your first statement.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:12pm

No, Namo.

I think THAT factor is not one of the ones that needs to be looked into. That has nothing to do with other factors at all.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:14pm

It's interesting that in the retelling of this story in this very thread, the accuser's age has dropped to 14. In the original linked article it says she was 15 when she first met the celebrity Scientologist.

If this thread goes on for many more pages perhaps we can get her down to toddler age.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:15pm

This is also why I'm not a fan of these Draconian child predator laws Loofah McFalafel is always bullying people into accepting by automatically labeling any opponent as "pro-child-predator." Not all sexual offenders are equal, but many want the law to treat them as such.
Updated On: 4/6/06 at 04:15 PM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:20pm

Whoever said that there was no such thing as bad publicity, didn't count on something like this.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:20pm

I'm probably a titsch guilty of painting with a wide brush...we know very little about this situation, so all we can really debate is the generic situation of statutory rape and the law.

I remember a time when I was 17 and working backstage on a production of COMPANY and developed a MASSIVE crush on the ASM, Chris. He was probably 24-25 and just so freaking cute. He caught me staring at him when he was changing into his blacks one day...and just gave me this killer smile. Would I have been damaged if we had an affair? I don't think so. Or when I had the same kind of back and forth with the Toby in the SWEENEY TODD I was in at the same theatre the year before (he was in his 30's). I think I would have been just fine and dandy being initiated into the wonders of sex with him. They were good men with good hearts and I got to know them socially. Who knows...maybe I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

But, and here's the big 'but', no matter how hard I tuck, I'm not a girl...and, as Britney said, not yet a woman. And there is a double standard, due to the power differential (that's my new fave phrase, Namo) that is either truly biological or instilled through centuries of dominance of men over women. And I can't help feeling that if it were my own daughter, I'd have a major problem with it. If it were my son, I would like to THINK that I'd feel the same way.

But why do I feel that Jodi Foster's character in TAXI DRIVE must be saved and Joseph Gordon Leavitt's character in MYSTERIOUS SKIN was just dealing with some f*cked up sh*t and could take care of himself?

F*ck...it really is complicated.

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 04:20 PM

[Poppy]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:29pm

I'm going to wait for all the facts in this one. I'll probably be killed for saying this but many of today's stage door 'sallys' are hot to trot. Did you ever observe them? The item doesn't say he raped her. And she must have enjoyed it 'cause she went to his apartment the second time. And why wait so long to come forward??? Is he rejecting her now? BUT having said all that, Mr. Barbour is a stupid man for involving himself with a underage chickie. He should know better.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:39pm

I'm trying to think of this from just looking at some of the fans I've seen or heard about. This girl was young, and James barbour is a pretty handsome guy--I think it's safe to say whether or not she slept with him, she probably was a big fan and had one hell of a crush on the guy. Maybe she was one of those who shows up at the stage door for a specific performer a lot--whatever happened, she ended up being brought to his dressing room to visit. Even with her mother once.

Is it far fetched that perhaps recently, she has been maybe somehow cut off or not as closely in touch with James and she used to be, and this is her revenge? I mean, there's an ABUNDANCE of nutty fans out there. THEY are just as capable of taking advantage as the star.

It's just a bit fishy to me that she's just coming up with this now. It's as though something happened to their relationship---whatever it was or has been--just very recently that made her want to "get back" at him. And if that's the case, this would be a rather easy thing to make up, wouldn't it?
Updated On: 4/6/06 at 04:39 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:44pm

Thank you for reinterating the complicated nature that I was trying to illustrate, Robbie.

Another angle to look at is the Jodie Foster of Taxi Driver needing saving and the Jodie of The Accused getting BLAMED. We might have seen a bit of that in this thread here today.

But, take a gander at this, I just found a chart online of worldwide age of consent laws and the disparities are striking.

For example, in Iowa, 14 years old IS the age of consent for males engaging in male/female sex. However, females have to be 17!

In New Hampshire, it's 16 for both males and females who want to engage in male/female sex. BUT, it's 18 for males who want to engage in male/male sex and females who want to engage in female/female sex. Is that Through the Looking Glass, or WHAT?

It's interesting that in many states, males can give consent at 14 but the youngest for females is 16. In a culture that WIDELY gives females credit for maturing much more quickly than males!

An interesting point is that the age of consent for EVERYBODY in Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) is 14, provided that they are engaging in male/female sex. However, male/male and female/female sex is technically illegal there (which is bad news for the fellas I've grown acquainted with each winter down there).

Globally it's interesting too. In Austria, for instance, if you're 14 you can have ALL the male/female sex you want. If you're 14, you gals can have all the steamy lesbo action you want. HOWEVER, if you're gay and you dare act on that fact before you're 18, you could wind up in BIIIIIIIG trouble.

Again, as I've tried to point out, it's complicated.

See for yourself

Updated On: 4/6/06 at 04:44 PM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:45pm

The question must be asked: Where was the mother during all of this?

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:47pm

Wasn't there a situation in Kansas not too long ago where a guy in his late teens got 20 years in jail or so for having sex with a 14-year-old guy because gays weren't protected by the Romeo and Juliet clause?

[Craig]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 4:59pm

BroadwayGirl

There are probably better ways to get back at someone than pursuing something that will either drag your name, sexual history, family life, etc through the press and court of public opinion or get you slapped with a slander suit.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:02pm

Let's face it, Statuatory Rape laws are just Angry Parent laws. If this is true, this girl clearly willingly had sex with him, and now a) regrets it or b) wants money. It's like when a drunken girl has sex with a guy at a party, regrets it in the morning, and accuses him of rape.

I'm not saying that what Barbour did was right. But why should the law have to babysit stupid little fifteen-year-olds who don't think ahead?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the fact that he's a scientologist. Man...

However, I have to throw in one more joke: At least this year's prison production will be *fantastic*!

[Joshua488]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:04pm

There may be better ways at getting back at someone, but perhaps this girl has something wrong with her that she's become so excessively infatuated over him that this seems like the right way to stab him in the back. (Just speculation...)

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:13pm

Well...there's a whole lot of speculation going on.

Perhaps this...maybe that.

All we really know is this. A thirty five year old (at the time) man is accused of sexual assault and sodomy of a fifteen year old (at the time) girl. It's illegal and the process must play out to its logical (or illogical, depending on where you fall on age-of-consent laws) conclusion.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:19pm

I'm still looking for a "sodomy" defintion for this case. It's possible he's a "Bob," (Vagina Monologues fans know what I'm talking about!) and it has nothing to do with the Hershey Highway at all.

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:22pm

But that other kind of sodomy is so...toothless.

Figuratively, of course.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 4/6/06 at 5:25pm

Well, of course, Craig. But as Joshua said, we're talking about a fan who was potentially very infatuated and obsessive. I'm just saying, while the accusation on Barbour is very possible, it's equally as possible for the girl to be taking advantage as well.