Chop Suey/Bruce Weber

[Guest exFratBoy]

I noticed that the movie was playing in theaters now, and was wondering what you all thought of it and Weber.

 

For my two cents, when the book came out-- after I got over my crush on Peter Johnson-- I started thinking about what Weber actually did to the poor kid.

 

(Back story for those unfamiliar with it: Weber found Johnson at a wrestling camp in Wisconsin when he was 15 or 16 and started photographing him. He convinced Johnson's parents to let the teenager come live with him in upstate New York, where he attended high school while Weber continued to photograph him. Weber and his friends would dress Johnson up in all sorts of outfits (sailor boy, ball gowns, etc.), and he eventually got Johnson to pose nude, including full-frontal nudes, which are published in the book. After graduating high school, Johnson was married with child at age 19. Hmmmm.)

 

My gut tells me that if Bruce Weber wasn't an influential fashion photographer, he'd be sitting in jail somewhere doing 20 years for child molestation. (Think about it: it turns out some guy on your block has a 16 year old kid living with him who he dresses in ballgowns and takes nude photographs of. Sounds like every D.A.'s dream case.) And what were Johnson's parents thinking? I can't but imagine that spending his teenage years like that fucked Johnson up big time. Especially considering that he was essentially Weber's hostage during those years. But what's most disturbing about it to me, is that the whole story seems to confirm some of people's worst fears about gay men, namely that we're all a bunch of pedophiles.

 

Thoughts??

[Guest 7Zach]

I'm glad u mentioned this. I remember the story, but didn't know there was a book. What was the title? Tks.

[Guest exFratBoy]

>I'm glad u mentioned this. I

>remember the story, but didn't

>know there was a book.

>What was the title? Tks.

>

 

Title of the book was also "Chop Suey." Has some very hot shots of Peter Johnson. And his peter. (Ouch, that was lame.)

[Guest pickwick]

Child molestation? Does New York criminalize the act of taking nude pictures of a teenager with the knowledge and consent of his parents?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Thoughts??

 

You're trying to get me into trouble, aren't you? :-)

 

Reservedly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest exFratBoy]

>Child molestation? Does New York

>criminalize the act of taking

>nude pictures of a teenager

>with the knowledge and consent

>of his parents?

 

Well since you asked.... Yes it does.

It wouldn't be an open and shut case, but a D.A. who wanted to prosecute would have a pretty good case. If the pictures were being used for "prurient intent" and if the child was a minor, then yes, it would be illegal.

Sick as it may seem, many of the children used in kiddie porn are introduced to it by their parents, so his parents knowledge and consent would be irrelevant- although possibly grounds to prosecute them for child abuse.

 

To put it into context, a prosecutor brought a lawsuit against a well-known female photographer, whose name escapes me, for taking nude pictures of her pre-pubescent children for an art book. Even though the pictures had zero prurient interest (as opposed to Weber's shots of Johnson, which could well have been taken for Playgirl) the case did go to trial.

[Guest exFratBoy]

>>Thoughts??

>

>You're trying to get me into

>trouble, aren't you? :-)

>

>

>Reservedly yours,

>

>FFF

 

 

You seem to do a very good job of that without my help, dude. Now share....

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>You seem to do a very

>good job of that without

>my help, dude. Now share....

 

 

OK, you cyber-twisted my arm.

 

I, like probably just about any gay man with sight, love alot of the Bruce Weber pictures. However, I felt the whore point of the "Chop Suey" book to be actually rather creepy. Here's this grown man ADMITTING that he cruised (how else can it be characterized?) a high school WRESTLING TEAM and he picks out some kid and decides to "chronicle" his development into manhood. Ewwwww. Frankly, I think the whole thing was borderline NAMBLA. If you read the text, he fawns over this kid and it's painfully obvious that Bruce fell in love with him.

 

On a side note, several months ago he was interviewed by Charlie Rose and after the interview, I had nothing but a mixture of contempt and pity for Bruce Weber. Charlie asked him why many of his subjects tend to be beautiful men (I'm paraphrasing here) and Bruce proceeded to give some asinine, convoluted answer about how men aren't photographed as much and blah blah blah. I thought to myself, you're probably the most influential photographer alive today (of his kind) and yet you don't have the courage to say: "Well Charlie, I like photographing beautiful naked men because I'm gay." Instead, he twisted himself like a pretzel and insulted the intelligence of those who admire his work.

 

One other thing: he brought to the studio a golden retriever that sat at his feet throughout the interview. Bruce, what exactly was the point of bringing a DOG on camera?

 

Oh yeah, the coup de grace is, of course, Bruce Weber is married to a woman.

 

Memo to Bruce Weber: closets are for clothes.

 

Atristically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Your Freudian Slip Is Showing

 

"However, I felt the whore point of the "Chop Suey" book to be actually rather creepy."

 

P.S. The photographer ExFratBoy referred to is Sally Mann.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

RE: Your Freudian Slip Is Showing

 

>"However, I felt the whore point

>of the "Chop Suey" book

>to be actually rather creepy."

 

 

So much for spell check.

 

Typographically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest exFratBoy]

>I, like probably just about any gay man with sight, love

>alot of the Bruce Weber pictures. However, I felt the whore

>point of the "Chop Suey" book to be actually rather creepy.

>Here's this grown man ADMITTING that he cruised (how else

>can it be characterized?) a high school WRESTLING TEAM and

>he picks out some kid and decides to "chronicle" his

>development into manhood. Ewwwww. Frankly, I think the whole

>thing was borderline NAMBLA. If you read the text, he fawns

>over this kid and it's painfully obvious that Bruce fell in

>love with him.

 

Couldn't agree with you more. Especially the part about "cruising" the high school wrestling team.

And you don't have to be a shrink to figure out why Johnson got married and had a kid by age 19. (I AM a heterosexual, damn it!!)

But what the fuck were Johnson's parents thinking. He didn't seem to come from a particularly white trash family... I guess they just didn't realize what would be going down.

 

Check out Johnson's web site at http://www.peterjjohnson.com

 

 

>

>Oh yeah, the coup de grace is, of course, Bruce Weber is

>married to a woman.

 

Holy shit! I had no idea. Because, you are right, FFF, the guy is a super flame. The copy in the book about Weber and his buddies dressing up young Peter like a fucking Barbie doll was way, way over the top. Given the incredibly homoerotic subject matter of his photos- and his personal appearance with the beard and the turban/bandana thing on his head-- I had always assumed he was an old-school queer.

Learn something new every day.

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Bruce Weber's popularity

 

Had two friends visiting a church outside of Ravenna to view the Byzantine murals. It was late in the afternoon and the priest/sacristan waited on them to close up the church. He walked the mile back to the train station with them and on finding out they were from San Francisco asked, "Would you do me a really big favor when you get back to San Francisco?" "Sure, what would you like?" "Please send me some Bruce Weber postcards!" }>

[fedssocr1]

I tried to post this a couple of days ago, but I guess it got lost in the new software...

 

Anyway, I saw "Chop Suey" last week. The film itself is rather pretentious, but it does offer some interesting bits of history. It's as much about singer Frances Faye as it is about Peter. And Weber's little musings sound a lot like the old "Deep Thoughts" on SNL. But Peter and his fellow models are adorable. There's actually not much in the way of nudity in the film.

 

I also agree that the whole wrestling camp thing is pretty creepy. I wonder however if any of the nude photos happened before he turned 18. If they did I guess the whole "art" thing has saved Mr Weber, and if any of us did it we'd be in jail. It's just not fair. :-)

 

My theory is that Bruce had some sort of un-acted-upon same sex feelings in HS that he has never quite shaken. So, he seeks out these teen guys to photograph and romanticize.

 

By all accounts his relationship with his "wife" is one of a very deeply felt bond. Whether it's an actual sexual relationship is anyone's guess. Maybe after taking pictures of naked boys all day Brucie is up and ready to go. I think it sounds like his dogs are his surrogate children as much as his models are.

 

In the film Peter actually comes across as remarkably easy-going and nice. Here's a kid from the middle of BFE who gets whisked off the NYC and places all around the world to pose in odd locations and costumes by a world renowned photographer. I suspect his parents were probably a bit star-struck and were thinking about the money and Peter's future and weren't thinking about much else. Maybe Peter is str8, we have no reason to think otherwise, but he does pose very naturally and affectionately with his fellow models. Maybe he's just supremely confident in his own sexuality. He's clearly met lots of queer people and doesn't seem to have any hangups about it.

[Guest TruthTeller]

I love when the Message Board at the Gay Prostition site resmembles a tea party of Victorian ladies expressing shock - scandal! - digust! - at the sexual immorality of others.

 

Do you actually think someone who is 16 years old is the equivalent of an 8 year-old? In virtually every state (if not every state), 16 year old boys can marry. For most of this country's history, 13 year-old girls could legally marry in every state, and in some states, 14 year-old girls still can. In almost all states (if not every state), girls who are 16 can marry. The age of consent for sex virtually all over the world is 16 or less.

 

Due to the age difference, and how generally grotesque Weber is, their relationship may be "creepy" as an *asthetic* matter.

 

But to imply - or outright state - that sex with a 16 year-old is "pedophilia" or child molestation is to attribute to 16 year-olds a naivite, vulnerability and weakness which they simply do not have. The vast majority of 16 year-olds are perfectly capable of exercising meaningful judgment and consent. That's why we let them drive potentially fatal cars, and it's why their parents afford them a litany of freedoms which a 10 year-old doesn't have.

 

I know it makes people feel good and nice and superior to sieze an opportunity to condemn the sexual acts of others ("I may lick assholes and drink piss, but at least I don't cruise high school students!"). Gay people in particular tend to be hyper-vigilant in condemning anything that anyone might even suggest is improper when it comes to sex/age issues, because of intense fear of being labelled a pedophile.

 

But the premise of this entire thread is that a 16 year-old is incapable of knowing for himself what he does and doesn't want to do - a premise that is in conflict with basic cultural realities and with the laws prevailing in most countries on the planet.

[Traveller]

But T Squared, won't you agree with me that it's tough as hell to find a randy prepubescent 16 year old these days. Every time I think I've got a winner with a smooth bald eagle, I pull down their pants and damn, if their balls haven't already dropped. Oh well. I just keep trying.

 

Later.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I love when the Message Board at the Gay Prostition site

>resmembles a tea party of Victorian ladies expressing shock

>- scandal! - digust! - at the sexual immorality of others.

>

>Do you actually think someone who is 16 years old is the

>equivalent of an 8 year-old? In virtually every state (if

>not every state), 16 year old boys can marry. For most of

>this country's history, 13 year-old girls could legally

>marry in every state, and in some states, 14 year-old girls

>still can. In almost all states (if not every state), girls

>who are 16 can marry. The age of consent for sex virtually

>all over the world is 16 or less.

>

>Due to the age difference, and how generally grotesque Weber

>is, their relationship may be "creepy" as an *asthetic*

>matter.

>

>But to imply - or outright state - that sex with a 16

>year-old is "pedophilia" or child molestation is to

>attribute to 16 year-olds a naivite, vulnerability and

>weakness which they simply do not have. The vast majority

>of 16 year-olds are perfectly capable of exercising

>meaningful judgment and consent. That's why we let them

>drive potentially fatal cars, and it's why their parents

>afford them a litany of freedoms which a 10 year-old doesn't

>have.

>

>I know it makes people feel good and nice and superior to

>sieze an opportunity to condemn the sexual acts of others

>("I may lick assholes and drink piss, but at least I don't

>cruise high school students!"). Gay people in particular

>tend to be hyper-vigilant in condemning anything that anyone

>might even suggest is improper when it comes to sex/age

>issues, because of intense fear of being labelled a

>pedophile.

>

>But the premise of this entire thread is that a 16 year-old

>is incapable of knowing for himself what he does and doesn't

>want to do - a premise that is in conflict with basic

>cultural realities and with the laws prevailing in most

>countries on the planet.

 

 

I don't even know where to start.

 

So, I won't.

 

I'll let you do the heavy lifting exFratBoy.

 

Deferring yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I don't even know where to start.

>

>So, I won't.

 

Oh, gee - I can't tell you how relieved I am.

 

>I'll let you do the heavy lifting exFratBoy.

 

For someone who compared Weber's relationship with a 16 year-old to NAMBLA's advocacy of sexual relations with children under 8, I think that it's wise that you always let others do the "heavy lifting." In fact, I think you have no other choice.

[Guest exFratBoy]

>I love when the Message Board at the Gay Prostition site

>resmembles a tea party of Victorian ladies expressing shock

>- scandal! - digust! - at the sexual immorality of others.

>

>Do you actually think someone who is 16 years old is the

>equivalent of an 8 year-old? In virtually every state (if

>not every state), 16 year old boys can marry. For most of

>this country's history, 13 year-old girls could legally

>marry in every state, and in some states, 14 year-old girls

>still can. In almost all states (if not every state), girls

>who are 16 can marry. The age of consent for sex virtually

>all over the world is 16 or less.

>

>Due to the age difference, and how generally grotesque Weber

>is, their relationship may be "creepy" as an *asthetic*

>matter.

>

>But to imply - or outright state - that sex with a 16

>year-old is "pedophilia" or child molestation is to

>attribute to 16 year-olds a naivite, vulnerability and

>weakness which they simply do not have. The vast majority

>of 16 year-olds are perfectly capable of exercising

>meaningful judgment and consent. That's why we let them

>drive potentially fatal cars, and it's why their parents

>afford them a litany of freedoms which a 10 year-old doesn't

>have.

>

>I know it makes people feel good and nice and superior to

>sieze an opportunity to condemn the sexual acts of others

>("I may lick assholes and drink piss, but at least I don't

>cruise high school students!"). Gay people in particular

>tend to be hyper-vigilant in condemning anything that anyone

>might even suggest is improper when it comes to sex/age

>issues, because of intense fear of being labelled a

>pedophile.

>

>But the premise of this entire thread is that a 16 year-old

>is incapable of knowing for himself what he does and doesn't

>want to do - a premise that is in conflict with basic

>cultural realities and with the laws prevailing in most

>countries on the planet.

 

Actually T-Squared, I think you've got the whole point of the thread wrong. Completely wrong.

 

My original reason for posting this was to point out the hypocrisy of a society that prosecutes "unknowns" for doing the exact same thing that someone famous and well-connected like Weber is celebrated for. In other words, doesn't anybody think it's strange that if my neighbor down the street did what Weber did, he'd be in jail, villified as the Pervert of Elm Street, and (in many states) forced to notify everyone in the community that he is a convicted child molester once he gets out of jail, while Weber is hailed as a brilliant artiste?

 

I don't recall anyone making any value judgements as to the ability of 16 year olds to think for themselves. We (I) was merely stating what is legal and what is illegal in the U.S. Certainly you've heard of statutory rape laws? No is is endorsing them or demanding they be made stricter. But they do exist and prosecutors like to take advantage of them. What is truly creepy is that Weber is so much older than Johnson and that the relationship is clearly manipulative and one-sided. A point you yourself make.

 

So perhaps our tea party isn't so Victorian after all.

 

That said, I'm keeping my 14 year old nephew far away from you.

;-)

[Traveller]

>That said, I'm keeping my 14 year old nephew far away from

>you.

>;-)

 

XFB,

 

Wise move. But I'm really nice. What did you say your nephew's name was? Can he still sing alto? Does he like to go camping?

 

Later.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Actually T-Squared, I think you've got the whole point of

>the thread wrong. Completely wrong.

>My original reason for posting this was to point out the

>hypocrisy of a society that prosecutes "unknowns" for doing

>the exact same thing that someone famous and well-connected

>like Weber is celebrated for.

 

I don't think anyone is prosecuted for photographing 16 year-old males, because doing so isn't illegal. In New York, the age of consent for sex is 17, and you have no idea whether Weber had sex with him before 17 - or at all. How are you so sure that he did anything illegal at all, let alone something for which others would be prosecuted?

 

As for the point of the thread, there were people (not you) comparing him to NAMBLA and suggesting he engaged in pedophilia - that type of moralizing over a 16-year old is absurd.

 

>In other words, doesn't

>anybody think it's strange that if my neighbor down the

>street did what Weber did, he'd be in jail, . . . .

 

What specifically are you referencing here?

 

> . . . . villified as the

>Pervert of Elm Street, and (in many states) forced to notify

>everyone in the community that he is a convicted child

>molester once he gets out of jail, while Weber is hailed as

>a brilliant artiste?

 

I think that the only people who consider Weber a "brilliant artiste" - or know him at all - are those in very discrete elitist cultural enclaves who, given their vapid pretensions, would be just as unlikely to condemn your neighbor for any sexual act as they would be to condemn Weber.

 

If you asked the average American what they thought of the conduct you're accusing Weber of engaging in, the vast majority would condemn it with as much fervor as those in this Gay Prostitution forum have.

 

>I don't recall anyone making any value judgements as to the

>ability of 16 year olds to think for themselves.

 

Did you miss the post where FFF compared Weber to NAMBLA? That necessarily implies that a 16-year-old has as much of an ability to consent as an 8 year-old.

 

>We (I) was

>merely stating what is legal and what is illegal in the U.S.

>Certainly you've heard of statutory rape laws?

 

In most states, the age of consent is 16. In some states, it's lower. As I said, in virtually all states, those who are 16 and younger can marry, which presumably means we think they're entitled to fuck.

 

>No is is

>endorsing them or demanding they be made stricter. But they

>do exist and prosecutors like to take advantage of them.

>What is truly creepy is that Weber is so much older than

>Johnson and that the relationship is clearly manipulative

>and one-sided. A point you yourself make.

 

I just don't understand how you can be so sure - or even have an opinion at all - that they had sex before he was 17, or ever.

 

>That said, I'm keeping my 14 year old nephew far away from

>you.

 

Too late - he and I are already very well-acquainted. What you really have to worry about is that I'm planning on introducing him to Traveller soon.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>But T Squared, won't you agree with me that it's tough as

>hell to find a randy prepubescent 16 year old these days.

 

That's why it's imperative that you get hold of EFB's newphew.

 

>Oh well. I just keep trying.

 

That's really all you can do. One must be persistent with these matters.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>As for the point of the thread, there were people (not you)

>comparing him to NAMBLA and suggesting he engaged in

>pedophilia - that type of moralizing over a 16-year old is

>absurd.

>Did you miss the post where FFF compared Weber to NAMBLA?

>That necessarily implies that a 16-year-old has as much of

>an ability to consent as an 8 year-old.

 

Apparently I missed it to because I can't find where I said that. My actual QUOTE was: "Frankly, I think the whole thing was borderline NAMBLA." Please take special note of the adjective "borderline".

 

Since I'm sexually attacted to men and not boys, I'm not as familiar with the cut-off age for NAMBLA - unlike several of you. It was my understanding that NAMBLA was an advocate for men who have sex with those who are "under-age" and to me that means under the LEGAL age.

 

I'm sorry if I offended those who cruise elementary school playgrounds - I would hate to group you with those who cruise 10th grade wrestling camps. I'm sure you all have nothing in common with each other.

 

Apologetically yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Apparently I missed it to because I can't find where I said

>that. My actual QUOTE was: "Frankly, I think the whole

>thing was borderline NAMBLA." Please take special

>note of the adjective "borderline".

 

When you're recklessly tarring someone with an accusation of child molestation, including the phrase "borderline" is hardly meaningful. When it comes to child molestation, consent is the only meaningful inquiry, and it's either there or it's not. 8 year-olds are incapable of meaningful consent; 16 year-olds are not.

 

And what is your basis for asserting that Weber had sex with him when he was under-age?

 

>Since I'm sexually attacted to men and not boys . . . .

 

You are so moral.

 

>I'm not as

>familiar with the cut-off age for NAMBLA - unlike several of

>you.

 

Accusing anyone who disagrees with you on this topic of being a child molester is a pretty pitiful tactic. One can be aware of a group's activities without being a member of that group, and one can be aware of a group's beliefs without ascribing to them.

 

>It was my understanding that NAMBLA was an advocate for

>men who have sex with those who are "under-age" and to me

>that means under the LEGAL age.

 

Given that 16 IS the legal age in most states, what was your basis for the accusations you made?

 

>I'm sorry if I offended those who cruise elementary school

>playgrounds - I would hate to group you with those who

>cruise 10th grade wrestling camps. I'm sure you all have

>nothing in common with each other.

 

Do you think there's a difference between an 8-year-old and a 16-year old when it comes to their capacity to consent?

 

Again - implying that those who are defending Weber must want to have sex with children is just pitiful.

 

Do you think that someone who defends the right of another to engage in certain acts necessarily engages in those acts? If someone thinks that drugs should be legalized, does it mean they want to shoot heroin into their arm? If someone thinks that gay people should legally be able to have sex with each other, does it mean that the person advocating that is gay?

 

Concentrate hard on this: Pointing out the self-serving shrillness of your moralizing, or the demonstrably false premises on which it is based, doesn't make someone a child molester.

[Guest 7Zach]

Clearly in some states a male or female can marry at 16; south carolina was always the leader in this where 14 was permissible for a female. thought it had been raised, but not sure.

but in some states, the law isn't couched in age of consent, but instead, just excepted from the definition of statutory rape. And where either the girl or boy can have sex at 14, it is still statutory rape if the partner is below the age of 14 or more than 4 years older than that person who is between the ages of 14 to 17 or 18.

I only post cuz I thought the rationale was interesting; I don't remember the law for stat rape in new york...

did buy the book, but not started.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Clearly in some states a male or female can marry at 16;

 

I believe, without being certain, that this is true in every state. I am certain that it is true in the vast majority of states.

 

>south carolina was always the leader in this where 14 was

>permissible for a female. thought it had been raised, but

>not sure.

 

Until the 1960s', multiple states allowed a female who was 13 to marry with parental consent, and allowed females who were 14 to marry without parental consent. I'm reasonably certain that there are still states in which a female who is 14 can marry.

 

>but in some states, the law isn't couched in age of consent,

>but instead, just excepted from the definition of statutory

>rape.

 

Right - but the reason why sex with a person of a certain age is considered statutory rape is because of the assumption that such a person is incapable of consent. Thus, any person over that age is presumed to be capable of consent.

 

>And where either the girl or boy can have sex at 14,

>it is still statutory rape if the partner is below the age

>of 14 or more than 4 years older than that person who is

>between the ages of 14 to 17 or 18.

 

Only in some states. In New York, for instance, sex with someone under 17 is considered non-consensual; sex with someone over 17 is consensual, regardless of gender and regardless of the age of the other party.

 

Even then, there are varying degrees of seriousness - sex with someone under 11 is First Degree Rape; sex with someone under 14 is Second Degree Rape; sex with someone under 17 is Third Degree Rape.

 

>I only post cuz I thought the rationale was interesting; I

>don't remember the law for stat rape in new york...

>did buy the book, but not started.

 

The law in New York is what I just wrote. It's section 130.05 of the Penal Law.