Shouldn't have tickled him, Elmo [Sesame Street puppeteer resigns after sex allegations]

[grude]

Sex with a 16 or 17 might be illegal, but it is not child molestation.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Kevin Clash's accuser has criminal past



If you're talking about hetersexual child molesters, why not mention Woody Allen?

My definition of "homosexual" is someone who wants to have sexual relations with an adult of the same sex.

You don't get to make up your own definition of words. You are wrong about what the word means, as indicated by actual scientific articles that use the term, as well as just the basic etymology. Stop spreading ignorance.

And I honestly find it offensive that a moderator is defending your inaccuracies on a message board that's supposed to be about fighting ignorance.

If some people hear the term "homosexual pedophile" and think it means that homosexuals are pedophiles, they were already bigots to begin with, and we sure as hell should not coddle them. The word homosexual means "same sex" and contains absolutely nothing would indicate it applies to adults.

Again, you are factually wrong.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BigT

And I honestly find it offensive that a moderator is defending your inaccuracies on a message board that's supposed to be about fighting ignorance.

::Tiny violin::

[ctnguy]

Originally Posted by BigT

If some people hear the term "homosexual pedophile" and think it means that homosexuals are pedophiles, they were already bigots to begin with, and we sure as hell should not coddle them. The word homosexual means "same sex" and contains absolutely nothing would indicate it applies to adults.

You know what? The problem is not the technical accuracy of the terms "homosexual paedophile" or "gay child molester". The problem is that they are regularly used in cases like this one, whereas the terms "heterosexual paedophile" or "straight child molester" are not regularly used at all. That's what connects it to the still-common belief that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles.

The fact that the alleged victim and the alleged criminal are of the same gender will appear naturally from the details of the story. There is no need to draw special attention to it in a way that would not be done if they were of opposite genders.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by BigT

You don't get to make up your own definition of words.

I like Annie's definition.

[Eyebrows 0f Doom]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

If you're talking about hetersexual child molesters, why not mention Woody Allen?

Maybe because he's not a child molester? For someone who is getting so upset about people referring to child molesters by what you deem to be the correct terms, you sure aren't using it correctly yourself.

I know you have this weird thing about Woody Allen, but last I checked, having sex with a 20 year old ain't child molestation.

[Acsenray]

The question is not what the literal meaning of the word "homosexual" is. It's the question of when it's appropriate to identify a particular characteristic.

In 2007, the National League's most valuable player was Jimmy Rollins, Philadelphia's black shortstop.

There are some circumstances in which the above sentence would be appropriate. But there are many circumstances in which the identification "black shortstop" should raise eyebrows.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

Going to continue the hijack since hopefully the situation with Kevin Clash will be drawing to a non-eventful close soon.

I grew up watching both Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Mr. Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister first, but went into children's programming because he believed in it, as you can tell from his quiet but empassioned defense of PBS funding. He was soft-spoken but you could tell that he understood kids, and though he had a low-tech show with little puppets and old-fashioned ways, he still got through to kids for years and years. I recently read so many essays where people talked about how easily, effortlessly he could speak to children (or adults) who were hurting deeply inside, how abused kids saw him on TV and believed there was someone out there who loved them and cared, how even 'regular' kids benefited by listening to him. I loved the show. I learned a lot of lessons from Sesame Street about reading and the world and all kinds of things, but I think I learned more important ones from Mr. Rogers.

Yes, he had kind of a funny, soft, nasalish voice, and he was very gentle and quiet in his manner. I'm sure that came off poorly to some. My husband's father, an abusive man, called Mr. Rogers a "pansy" and refused to allow my husband to watch the show as a child. I sometimes wonder if his father's prohibition was not out of fear that he would be listening to a "pansy" but that he would hear a male authority figure quietly telling him that he had worth, he was a good person, he was special and loved.

My ex's parents live in the same neighborhood in Pittsburgh as Fred and his wife. They would dine together, attend concerts, etc. not best pals but friendly and social.

Fred Rogers was exactly what you saw on t.v. A kind loving intelligent fellow who related to kids and to whom kids related.

Sometimes is really is that easy.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by BigT

You don't get to make up your own definition of words. You are wrong about what the word means, as indicated by actual scientific articles that use the term, as well as just the basic etymology. Stop spreading ignorance.

That's actually a fairly common usage among people who are interested in queer theory and identity politics, where there's a good deal of debate over whether labels like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have an objective significance, or are entirely self-selected and not subject to outside validation. In that context, the distinction Annie raised (and which MPB mangled) is significant in that the overwhelming majority of child molesters self identify as heterosexual. Even if you insist on an objective definition of sexuality, defining child molesters as "heterosexual" or "homosexual" is still problematic, because those same predators also, almost overwhelmingly, are exclusively heterosexual in their adult relationships.

It has been argued that sexual attraction to prepubescents is, effectively, gender blind, and a pedophiles choice of targets is largely shaped by opportunity: men are more likely to be placed in situations where they have access to young boys as opposed to young girls, but given the chance, do not generally scruple as to their victims' gender. This is not as unlikely as it may seem at first blush. Attraction is usually driven by secondary sexual traits: breasts, biceps, hips, beard stubble, etc. Children of either gender are equally lacking in those traits, which is apparently what draws pedophiles to them. When approached from this perspective, pedophilia is arguably a third and distint orientation from both hetero- and homosexuality.

Anyway, regardless of that, it is unarguable that men who identify as homosexual are vastly less likely to be child molesters than men who identify as heterosexual. While Annie's post may have been lacking in some nuance, the central thrust of her argument remains valid and important.

And I honestly find it offensive that a moderator is defending your inaccuracies on a message board that's supposed to be about fighting ignorance.

Well, at least some good has come out of all this, then.

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom

Maybe because he's not a child molester? For someone who is getting so upset about people referring to child molesters by what you deem to be the correct terms, you sure aren't using it correctly yourself.

I know you have this weird thing about Woody Allen, but last I checked, having sex with a 20 year old ain't child molestation.

Still creepy for him to go after his girlfriend's daughter, especially if he was dating Mom during the daughter's childhood (which would have possibly put him in a parental role at some point in the daughter's life), but assuming he DID wait until she was legal, not molestation. Just creepy.

[aceplace57]

I'm not surprised. That retraction came so suddenly that I figured there was a payoff. Clash also made certain the accuser won't be giving interviews.

Money talks. It saved Michael Jackson from prison after the first pedo case in the mid 90's. But eventually went to trial years later on a 2nd case.

Kevin Clash -- the voice of Elmo -- agreed to pay his accuser $125,000, with one string attached -- that the accuser recant his story that Clash had sex with him when he was a minor ... TMZ has learned.

The settlement document goes on to say if Stephens is asked by anyone about his relationship with Clash, he must only repeat the statement [above] in the settlement that recants his story.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/17/kevin-...ldon-stephens/

[Annie-Xmas]

Like no word in the whole history of the human race has ever changed meaning.

My definition of homosexual comes from Andrew Vachss, who has spent three decades shielding childing from molesters and is reconized as the leading expert on the subject.

Originally Posted by Andrew Vachss

The intent is to blame homosexuals as opposed to pedophiles. Since there is so much homophobia, it's a way of diverting the fire."

Vachss points out that homosexuals -- men attracted to men -- are no more pedophiles than male-male pedophiles are homosexual. Pedophiles are pedophiles, period, whichever gender they prey upon.

]

[Phèdre nó Delaunay]

The problem with that definition, is that it would imply there are no homosexual teens, or that homosexual teens are after a relationship with an ADULT of the same sex. It just doesn't work.

[Inner Stickler]

Only to people intent on being obstructionary.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Originally Posted by MPB in Salt Lake

Looks like you were both right, as the accuser has now recanted his charges and admits that he was indeed over 18 at the time the consensual relationship began.

14 minutes and 45 seconds?
---------------------------------------------------
Just saw where the accuser is now recanting his recantation, saying he took the $125,000 in settlement money under duress, (which in order to receive he had to say that he had initially lied about the age when he became involved with Mr. Clash) and is now back to his original claim, that is, saying that he and Kevin Clash indeed first had sex when he was just 16 years old....

[Seanette]

So much for his credibility, whichever version is the actual truth.

[Marley23]

A second accuser has come forward, and Clash has resigned from Sesame Street. Understudies will replace Clash as Elmo, and Jon Stewart will continue to voice Gitmo.

[Leaper]

Okay, I understand that the producers of Sesame Street don't want to be part of the inevitable avalanche of scurrilous newspaper stories, but seriously. The new accuser is "claiming he had only recently become aware of 'adverse psychological and emotional effects'"? I'm no expert, and I thankfully don't have that level of trauma in my life, so maybe it's possible, but c'mon, that at least SOUNDS like a blatant money grab.

[Inner Stickler]

Sesame Street has a puppet cuban prison?! The show's changed since I was a toddler.

[Diceman]

Another article on the new allegations.

Apparently, the original accuser is recanting his recanting of the allegations, saying he was pressured into withdrawing the claim.

Looks like Sesame Steet has decided to throw Clash under the bus.

[Dr_Doom]

Originally Posted by Leaper

Okay, I understand that the producers of Sesame Street don't want to be part of the inevitable avalanche of scurrilous newspaper stories, but seriously. The new accuser is "claiming he had only recently become aware of 'adverse psychological and emotional effects'"? I'm no expert, and I thankfully don't have that level of trauma in my life, so maybe it's possible, but c'mon, that at least SOUNDS like a blatant money grab.

To be fair, sometimes it takes the courage of another person to help other, similarly effected people come forward regarding cases such as these.

If the guy in question is still a very young adult, who has had depression or any one of a multitude of other emotional/behavioural problems for even only a few years, it could easily be understood that it mightn't be immediately obvious what the possible cause/s may be for his issues.

Lots of people in their 30s, 40s, 50s don't realize that their issues stem from events of their teen years; events that didn't even seem like a big deal, when they were still teens.

It would not surprise me if more "victims"* come out of the woodwork.

* I reserve judgement on whether Clash actually "victimized" these boys/men. Undecided at this time.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Dr_Doom

If the guy in question is still a very young adult, who has had depression or any one of a multitude of other emotional/behavioural problems for even only a few years, it could easily be understood that it mightn't be immediately obvious what the possible cause/s may be for his issues.

The timeline in the article implies the new accuser would be 35 now.

Just an observation, not a judgment as to whether it makes his claims more or less credible.

[Dr_Doom]

Originally Posted by bup

The timeline in the article implies the new accuser would be 35 now.

Just an observation, not a judgment as to whether it makes his claims more or less credible.

Sorry, I read both links, which appear to be fundamentally the same, and no current ages were given for either of the accusers, and no timeline was presented that I noticed?

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Mightn't?

[Leaper]

Huh, the article seems to have changed, because I remember it saying something along the lines of the alleged relationship beginning "twenty years ago." That plus the given age of 15 equals 35.

Originally Posted by Dr_Doom

To be fair, sometimes it takes the courage of another person to help other, similarly effected people come forward regarding cases such as these.

If the guy in question is still a very young adult, who has had depression or any one of a multitude of other emotional/behavioural problems for even only a few years, it could easily be understood that it mightn't be immediately obvious what the possible cause/s may be for his issues.

Lots of people in their 30s, 40s, 50s don't realize that their issues stem from events of their teen years; events that didn't even seem like a big deal, when they were still teens.

True, but the article quote said that he only recently became aware of the trauma. Perhaps it's bad wording, but that gave me mental images of very sudden onset, triggered by either the recent news stories or dollar signs, depending on whose side you believe.

[Dr_Doom]

Originally Posted by MPB in Salt Lake

Mightn't?

It's a cool word, still in use, even to this day, in small secluded corners of the internet wilderness.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Leaper

Huh, the article seems to have changed, because I remember it saying something along the lines of the alleged relationship beginning "twenty years ago." That plus the given age of 15 equals 35.

Yeah.

[Shoeless]

Might need to change the thread title again. I read an article in the paper this morning saying someone else has come forth with allegations that Clash engaged in sexual behavior with him when he was 15, and that Clash regularly trolled gay chat rooms looking for underage boys. Following the latest allegations, Clash has quit his job with Sesame Street.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Shoeless

Might need to change the thread title again.

Done.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Miller

That's actually a fairly common usage among people who are interested in queer theory and identity politics, where there's a good deal of debate over whether labels like "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have an objective significance, or are entirely self-selected and not subject to outside validation. In that context, the distinction Annie raised (and which MPB mangled) is significant in that the overwhelming majority of child molesters self identify as heterosexual. Even if you insist on an objective definition of sexuality, defining child molesters as "heterosexual" or "homosexual" is still problematic, because those same predators also, almost overwhelmingly, are exclusively heterosexual in their adult relationships.

It has been argued that sexual attraction to prepubescents is, effectively, gender blind, and a pedophiles choice of targets is largely shaped by opportunity: men are more likely to be placed in situations where they have access to young boys as opposed to young girls, but given the chance, do not generally scruple as to their victims' gender. This is not as unlikely as it may seem at first blush. Attraction is usually driven by secondary sexual traits: breasts, biceps, hips, beard stubble, etc. Children of either gender are equally lacking in those traits, which is apparently what draws pedophiles to them. When approached from this perspective, pedophilia is arguably a third and distint orientation from both hetero- and homosexuality.

Anyway, regardless of that, it is unarguable that men who identify as homosexual are vastly less likely to be child molesters than men who identify as heterosexual. While Annie's post may have been lacking in some nuance, the central thrust of her argument remains valid and important.

No, the thrust of her argument was that it the word did not mean what it actually means. It wasn't clumsily worded. She was offended because someone dared use the word itself, not that they showed some lack of knowledge of the subject.

And not only did I do a paper on this at college, I also had to research because I had POCD for awhile, fearing that I might actually be attracted to minors. What you say applies to child molesters, who are usually not actually pedophiles (as they do not identify as such). Actual pedophiles do align with sexual preferences at roughly the same percentages as adults do, hence why the terms heterosexual and homosexual pedophile is useful. Pedophiles by definition are attracted primarily to children, and many exclusively so, so there's no way to do actual correlation.

I guess I'm less offended now than I am dumbfounded by how you both can read what Annie said as being about the concept and not the words themselves. Sorry to make you a little less happy at the bad feelings of others. Hope you have a decent Thanksgiving.

[Miller]

Oh shit, you wrote a paper? In college? Well, shut my mouth! I didn't realize I was dealing with a bona fide expert, here!

[Hail Ants]

Well so much for my defending Clash earlier and saying he'll come out unscathed (that was before the latest allegations). Now that he's quit I don't think there's much life left in the story (barring anything even more salacious coming out). And I think, well, this is the way it had to go. Even if these 'relationships' were not 'predatory' or 'abusive', he's fucking Elmo for Christ's sake! He can't be that character and like gay teenage buys too. But I hope they don't start expunging Elmo from the past Sesame Street universe though, that would be unnecessary and ridiculous.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Hail Ants

Even if these 'relationships' were not 'predatory' or 'abusive', he's fucking Elmo

Wouldn't that just be masturbation?

Or maybe not...

(Link is in questionable taste but technically SFW)

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Only to people intent on being obstructionary.

I've played Obstructionary. The key is to not let your team see what you're drawing.