Chop Suey/Bruce Weber

[Guest exFratBoy]

>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.

 

Late to the party, but just in time to see TT self-hoisted on his own petard.

Let's lay out the facts here, TT, since in your rush to defend NAMBLA, you seemed to have trod over them:

 

1. I don't think anyone was suggesting that Weber was boinking young Johnson. I'd be very shocked if anything physical ever happened between them. Ergo, the discussion was not about the age of consent, sex between adults and teenagers or anything like it.

 

2. It was about the fact that many of us felt that your average Joe (or average NAMBLA member, if such types can be termed "average") would have incited the attentions of the District Attorney's office in many jurisdictions, if he was found to have an unrelated 15 year old boy living in his house, having his friends come over to dress the boy up in drag, and then photographing him naked. Said "average Joe" would also arouse the ire of a prosecutor if the 15 year old in question was female, and he was taking naked pictures of her.

 

3. The fact that said 15 year old boy could legally marry or drive a car is irrelevant. The "age of consent" for porn is 18. That's why all those websites with twinks have big warning labels on them: all models over 18 years old. That's why FBI agents hang out in AOL teen chatrooms, hoping to catch older men trying to get teens of both sexes to hook up with them.

 

4. A prosecutor could easily call Weber's photos porn. They certainly have "prurient interest" which is the standard the courts often use to define pornography. Sally Mann- whose photos have no prurient interest-- was brought to trial under child pornography laws. No one is endorsing this position-- just noting it as fact.

 

5. The fact that Weber is acclaimed for something that would get someone else thrown in prison in most places that aren't San Francisco or Manhattan is a fascinating double standard.

 

6. Taking a naive 15 year old straight boy and turning him into a "homoerotic icon" - Weber's words, not mine- has got to seriously screw with the head of said naive 15 year old. It's a cruel thing to do, yet no one ever takes Weber to task for it. It's no more or less cruel than turning a naive 15 year old girl into a sex symbol.

 

7. FFF was using the phrase "borderline NAMBLA" in a somewhat arch manner, more as a humorous descriptor-- you know, the way people often say someone really stupid is "borderline retarded." he meant that there was a very creepy overtone to the whole Chop Suey project. In fact, you yourself pointed that out as well.

 

8. The fact that you defend NAMBLA and the "right" of 16 year old boys to have sex with 45 year old men is sickening. For those of you who've been wondering why so many guys are still in the closet- here's your answer- they don't want to be associated with people who let NAMBLA march in gay rights parades. Funny thing that there's no NAMGLA for straight perverts.

 

9. Try thinking before you type. Or at least reading what other people wrote. It'll save all of us a lot of time having to answer you.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Accusing anyone who disagrees with you on this topic of

>being a child molester is a pretty pitiful tactic.

 

Here we go again.

 

I'm gonna need to be hooked up to a dramamine drip if I hang around this message board much longer.

 

Oh TruthTeller, could you please share with the class where in my post I accused ANYONE of being a "child molester"?

 

I'll save you the time...............I didn't.

 

Apparently the hatred some of you have for me and my views is so intense that you're now seeing things in my posts. Maybe if you reread my posts enough, you'll start to believe that I'm implicating the Taliban in Bruce Weber's obsession with "young" men.

 

I never said Weber had sex with him. I said that Weber was obviously IN LOVE with him - it's doesn't take a mental health expert to see THAT! And I said that his idolatry of the kid was creepy.

 

Call me crazy, but I think any 50 year old man who cruises a high school wrestling camp is a perv. But that's just MY OPINION. I'm sure those who do it think they're well-adjusted and well-meaning and think that people like me "just don't understand".

 

Well, I DO understand them and I still think they're pervs.

 

And for those of you who are wondering, I think the same thing about STRAIGHT men who cruise high school cheerleaders.

 

I would appreciate it (and I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears) if some of you would stick to what I'm saying and not try to find some hidden meaning. I may be many things, but obtuse I'm not.

 

Wearily yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

Now you're just making up facts -- including many which are just outright false:

 

(1) Your statement -- that "[t]he "age of consent" for porn is

18 -- is false. In New York, Section 263 of the Penal Law, entitled "Sexual Performance by a Child," provides that a person is guilty of child pornogrpahy ONLY if the person depicted is "less than sixteen years of age."

 

Photographing 16 year-olds, or even putting them in fuck films, is completely legal. By contrast, running around accusing someone of breaking a law, when you have no fucking idea what the law says, is, to put it generously, pretty reckless.

 

(2) Even for those under 16 years old, it is NOT child pornography unless it includes "actual or simulated sexual intercourse, devitate sexual intercourse, sexual beastiality, mastrubation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals."

 

(3) Your first post said that Weber met Peter Johnson when Johnson was "15 or 16." Now, to make your argument more compelling, you continously assert that Weber dressed him up and photographed him when he was 15, when you obviously have no idea if that's true.

 

In light of those FACTS, what is the basis for the statement you made in the very first post you wrote that:

 

<<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.>>

 

Based on what you know about what Weber did, what possible basis could you have for saying that "he'd be sitting in jail somewhere doing 20 years for child molestation" if he weren't Bruce Weber?

 

(4) However old he was when he first met Weber, Peter Johnson is now an adult, and has nothing but praise for Bruce Weber (http://www.peterjohnson.com). I'm sure you think that you know what's better for Peter Johnson than he does (that's the essence of a rabid moralizer), but given that this adult who was involved and KNOWS what happened has nothing but good things to say about Weber, doesn't this strike you as more convincing than your rank, misinformed speculation?

 

>Let's lay out the facts here, TT, since in your rush to

>defend NAMBLA, you seemed to have trod over them:

 

Saying that I defended NAMBLA is about as accurate as your understanding of the law of child pornography. Not only did I do no such thing, I defended Weber by CONTRASTING him with NAMBLA, and pointing out that while sex with someone too young to consent is child molestation (i.e., NAMBLA), sex with someone old enough to consent (i.e. Weber) is not. Do you understand what it means to draw contrasts?

 

>2. It was about the fact that many of us felt that your

>average Joe (or average NAMBLA member, if such types can be

>termed "average") would have incited the attentions of the

>District Attorney's office in many jurisdictions, if he was

>found to have an unrelated 15 year old boy living in his

>house, having his friends come over to dress the boy up in

>drag, and then photographing him naked.

 

What is your basis for saying that Weber photographed him naked when he was 15?

 

>3. The fact that said 15 year old boy could legally marry or

>drive a car is irrelevant. The "age of consent" for porn is

>18.

 

See above. This is your main point, and it couldn't be more wrong.

 

>5. The fact that Weber is acclaimed for something that would

>get someone else thrown in prison in most places that aren't

>San Francisco or Manhattan is a fascinating double standard.

 

Where would Weber be thrown into prison for anything that he did? Why do you feel so comfortable spewing statements like this when you have no fucking idea if they're true or not?

 

>6. Taking a naive 15 year old straight boy and turning him

>into a "homoerotic icon" - Weber's words, not mine- has got

>to seriously screw with the head of said naive 15 year old.

 

Now that Peter Johnson is an adult, that's not what he thinks - but you, of course, know better.

 

>8. The fact that you defend NAMBLA and the "right" of 16

>year old boys to have sex with 45 year old men is sickening.

 

That I defended NAMBLA is just a lie on your part. As for the second part, if you really think that a 45 year old man shouldn't have the right to have sex with a 16 year old boy, then you should write to a lot of Congressmen, since doing so is perfectly legal in many states. In every state, it is legal for a 45-year old to have sex with a 17 year-old. Your morality is in the distinct minority, not mine.

 

>For those of you who've been wondering why so many guys are

>still in the closet- here's your answer- they don't want to

>be associated with people who let NAMBLA march in gay rights

>parades. Funny thing that there's no NAMGLA for straight

>perverts.

 

There's no straight NAMBLA because it's not needed; the sexualization of young girls for heterosexual pleasure couldn't be more rampant. And anyone who justifies staying in the closet by citing to the presence of a group of 10 gay child molesters -- when child molestation is far, far more common among heterosexuals -- is just a victim of having internalized the pedophilia lie told about gay people.

 

>9. Try thinking before you type. Or at least reading what

>other people wrote. It'll save all of us a lot of time

>having to answer you.

 

Try knowing about things before you write about them. It will save me a lot of time having to correct you.

[Guest TruthTeller]

It's one thing to say something indefensible and baseless. But it makes it so much worse when, thereafter, you deny saying it.

 

>>Accusing anyone who disagrees with you on this topic of

>>being a child molester is a pretty pitiful tactic.

>

>Oh TruthTeller, could you please share with the class where

>in my post I accused ANYONE of being a "child molester"?

 

Yes, I can share with everyone where you did so. You said (in Post # 21):

 

<<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.>>

 

What you wrote could not have been clearer. You said that YOU were attracted to men and not boys, and therefore don't know the cut-off age for NAMBLA. This is in contrast to "several of you," who ARE attracted to boys and not men, and therefore do know the cut-off age for NAMBLA.

 

This was in response to my telling you that the cut-off age for NAMBLA was well below 16. The only possible meaning to what you wrote is that I knew the cut-off age for NAMBLA because I - unlike you - am attacted to boys.

 

And if you're going to try to draw some distinction between accusing someone of being a "child molester" versus accuing them of familiarizing themselves with NAMBLA's cut-off age because they're attracted to boys, don't bother. It's a meaningless distinction.

 

>Apparently the hatred some of you have for me and my views

>is so intense that you're now seeing things in my posts.

 

I know this will come as a great shock to you, but the views that I'm expressing on this topic - and on every other topic - have nothing at all to do with you. I probably should have warned you to sit down before reading that, because I'm sure that it's quite traumatic for you to learn that you are not at the center of everything, but I'm only doing good for you, despite by the pain it causes, by letting you know that it's true.

 

The idea that you think I have "hatred" for you, and that that's what caused me to write what I wrote, is so mind-bogglingly self-absorbed and self-important that it's hard to believe that you're actually suffering from those attributes so acutely.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>What you wrote could not have been clearer. You said that

>YOU were attracted to men and not boys, and therefore don't

>know the cut-off age for NAMBLA. This is in contrast to

>"several of you," who ARE attracted to boys and not men, and

>therefore do know the cut-off age for NAMBLA.

>

>This was in response to my telling you that the cut-off age

>for NAMBLA was well below 16. The only possible meaning to

>what you wrote is that I knew the cut-off age for NAMBLA

>because I - unlike you - am attacted to boys.

 

 

For those of you who hated diagramming sentences and parsing statements in high school, please run for the exit - this is going to be very dry.

 

Today, we are going to study the following sentence:

 

 

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.[/b]

 

The second (and most important) clause of the sentence is "I'm not (as) familiar with the cut-off age for NAMBLA". This is the "topic sentence", if you will.

 

The first clause: "Since I'm sexually attacted to men and not boys" explains why I am not familiar with NAMBLA's cut off age.

 

The sentence fragment: " - unlike several of you" is commenting on the central clause of the sentence. It has nothing to do with the modifying clause that explains why I am not AS familiar with NAMBLA as those attracted to boys.

 

The tag line is merely saying that "you" are familiar with the cut-off age and the first clause explains why I don't know the cut-off age. The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

That is, unless you have a chip on your shoulder.

 

I hope this sets straight yet another calumny that's been leveled against me.

 

Clarifyingly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest 7Zach]

As tt said,

This was in response to my telling you that the cut-off age for NAMBLA was well below 16. The only possible meaning to what you wrote is that I knew the cut-off age for NAMBLA because I - unlike you - am attacted to boys.

 

OTT

[Guest SeaGuy]

Interesting topic. I just wanted to point out if someone hasn't already, that some parents are quite willing to "whore out" their children. Michael Jackson usually had the consent of parents to have kids "visit" him at his compound. SICK.

[Guest exFratBoy]

I'll ignore all of TT's vitriol and try to get back to some basic points.

 

1. Okay-- I didn't bother to look it up. The age of consent for porn is 16 in NY. I'm trusting you on that, rather than looking it up. But other jurisdictions have different age limits. And as, I'll expound on later, the letter of the law has never stopped a determined prosecutor.

 

2. As for your definition of porn, a strong case could be made that Johnson was "lewdly displaying" his genitals. After all, Chop Suey, like most of Weber's work, is just a hardcover jerk-off magazine. I doubt most guys buy it for the artistic value.

 

3. So the adult Johnson speaks glowingly about Weber. It's in his financial interest to do so. He obviously was not all that uncomfortable when the whole thing was happening-- Weber didn't hold a gun to his head. On the other hand, you are discounting the incredible capacity humans have for self-deception. And it is my OPINION that being used as a sex object at such a young age is not healthy. I would not want my brother, son, nephew, whatever to be used like that.

 

4. Do you really believe that if Weber was just some guy living in say, Mississippi, taking pictures of an unrelated teenage boy who was living in his house, the DA wouldn't have found some reason to throw him in jail? If you do, you're even thicker than I thought. A determined prosecuter can usually find some way to get someone who is doing something that offends community standards. So they'd get him on something other than child abuse. There are all sorts of obscure laws about sexuality. NB: As I mentioned before, Sally Mann, a photographer who took nude photos of her own kids, was brought to trial for pornography in a jurisdiction where the book was sold. Same thing happened to Larry Flynt and Hustler.

 

5. I'm not quite sure why all this bugs you so much. But man, you are spewing some al-Qaida-like venom. The reason I'm not sure why you are so freaked out is that you initially said you found the whole relationship between Weber and Johnson to be "creepy." So did I. And I started thinking about what would have happened to Weber in a less liberal jurisdiction. A reasonable man might have disagreed with that, perhaps saying he thought Weber's reputation as a fashion photographer made him very different from the guy down the street. But for some reason, you launched a jihad.

 

6. You may not have meant to, but you did come off as defending the rights of older gentlemen to boink boys under 18. And in your blind hatred for all things FFF, you somehow accused him of inserting NAMBLA into this and went off about Weber having sex with Johnson.

 

7. I don't think it makes a fuckload of difference whether Johnson was 15 or 16 the first time he posed nude for Weber. Yes, maybe according to the law of New York State regarding child pornography. But we are talking subjectively here. And subjectively, I think the whole situation is very creepy, no matter what age Johnson was.

 

8. I've noticed you have a habit of taking one small, irrelevent piece of information, slip of the tongue or exaggeration and in your role as "Truth Teller" blowing it up into something extreme, thus losing the forest for the trees and launching a completely ridiculous sidebar conversation.

TT: I think I can safely say that everyone on here agrees on the following points:

NAMBLA: Bad

Weber's relationship with Johnson: Creepy

But did they ever have any kind of physical relationship: No

But would we want someone in our family whom we loved to have an experience similar to Johnson, even though he now claims to admire Weber: No.

Does prosecuting a case wherein the words "minor" "sex" and "pornography" often appear in close proximity to each other enhance a DA's reputation in many parts of the US: Yes.

Is taking homoerotic pictures, some nude, of an unrelated teenage boy who lives in your house looked upon with horror and disgust in these same parts of the US: Yes.

 

Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, maybe you can offer your opinion on my initial question: Do you think it's odd that no critic (and perhaps I should have been more explicit about saying "no critic" rather than "no one.") has ever brought up the fact that Weber's relationship with Johnson would probably have aroused the ire of the legal system had he been (a) less well-known and (b) living in a more conservative community?

I really would like to hear what you have to say about that, since that was my initial question.

You've already told me you think the relationship was creepy, but I'm curious to hear more.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>The only possible meaning to

>what you wrote is that I knew the cut-off age for NAMBLA

>because I - unlike you - am attacted to boys.

 

 

"The only possible meaning"? In other words, you're calling me a liar.

 

Ok, fine, whatever.

 

Finally yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

When one becomes hysterical, confusion arises. The quote to which you reacted was written BEFORE your prior post, and was excerpted by 7Zach.

 

Nonetheless, it is unquestionably clear that the only logical meaning of what you wrote is what I described. I believe and accept that you may not have intended that meaning - it is not uncommon for a person to convey something they didn't intend to convey - but, given the context of the respone, as Zach pointed out, it is the only rational understanding.

 

Stating that you didn't know the NAMBLA cut-off age BECAUSE you weren't interested in boys - after I had just told you what the NAMBLA cut-off age was - necessarily meant that whether a person a knows the cut-off age for NAMBLA is determined by whether they're attracted to boys.

 

If you want to snivel away and feign offense that your oh-so-solidified and important reputation for veracity has been questioned, feel free. It seems to me a more adult thing to do would be to just acknowledge that your choice of wording, unintended or otherwise, created the impression that you were accusing others of being attracted to children.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>If you want to snivel away

 

How does one actually "snivel"? I can't conjure that image.

 

 

>It seems to me a more adult

>thing to do would be to just acknowledge that your choice of

>wording, unintended or otherwise, created the impression

>that you were accusing others of being attracted to

>children.

 

I don't know if it's more "adult" but possibly the people who saw an unintended implication in my statement saw it because they in fact ARE attracted to children and that's why they quickly got their panties in a twist. Those who aren't attracted to children might not have been so quick to see the face of Elvis in a tortilla.

 

I didn't mean it that way, but I can see various reasons why some might have taken it that way.

 

Admittedly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I don't know if it's more "adult" but possibly the people

>who saw an unintended implication in my statement saw it

>because they in fact ARE attracted to children and that's

>why they quickly got their panties in a twist. Those who

>aren't attracted to children might not have been so quick to

>see the face of Elvis in a tortilla.

 

Gosh, I don't know how anyone could have ever thought that someone as high-minded and principled as you would have even *considered* accusing those who disagree with you of being attracted to children. You would never do such a thing, just as you petulantly insisted.

 

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I'm not quite sure why all this bugs you so much. . . . .A >reasonable man might have disagreed with that, perhaps saying he >thought Weber's reputation as a fashion photographer made him very >different from the guy down the street. But for some reason, you >launched a jihad.

 

The worst, most inaccurate, most harmful canard about gay men is the pedophilia myth -- that gay men are far more prone to child molestation than the average person, that it's dangerous to allow gay men around boys, etc. It's so pervasive and insidious that many, if not most, gay men themselves have come to internalize it, and believe it to be true at their core.

 

As a result, many gay men are so eager to prove to the world that *they* - unlike the perverted gay men over there - are not child molesters that they become the most vigorous propogators of the myth; they become the leaders of the witch hunt for child molesters among other gay men; they start conveying the idea that there really *is* a danger from allowing gay men around boys.

 

And so they react with discomfort and even anger at even innocuous relationships between gay men and boys - wishing, for example, that gay men who want to be Boy Scout Leaders would just shut up and go away, because they shouldn't want so badly to go on camping trips with 10 year-old boys, and their insisting upon this right just fuels the pedophilia concerns among straight people.

 

So I look at this thread and I see phrases like "Child molestor" and "imprisoned for 20 years" and "NAMBLA" being tossed around -- based on NOTHING other than the fact that this likely gay photographer lived with and took photographs of a 15 or 16 year-old boy, breaking NO LAWS in the process, and without any evidence at all suggesting that there was anything sexual that occurred.

 

And it seems pretty clear to me that, whether consciously or not, those who were recklessly throwing around such *extremely serious* accusations were doing so based on the premise that it is inherently dangerous (or at least wrong) to allow a gay man, especially a middle-aged gay male, to be near a teenaged boy, because any such situation -- regardless of any evidence of wrongdoing or even sex -- necessarily entails dangers of "child molestation" and NAMBLA.

 

It's all based on the idea that we have to prove we're not really child molesters, so we have to be the loudest and most vigorous in screaming MOLESTER whenever anyone could suggest that it might be there. It was really the first point you made in the first post you wrote -- that you disliked interactions such as the Weber-Johnson relationship because it inflammed the view of gay men as pedophiles-- even though there's no evidence at all of wrongdoing.

 

I think it's dangerous and despicable to start branding people with these terms all because you are afraid of how others may think of you if you don't scream out these allegations.

 

>4. Do you really believe that if Weber was just some guy

>living in say, Mississippi, taking pictures of an unrelated

>teenage boy who was living in his house, the DA wouldn't

>have found some reason to throw him in jail?

 

I don't think any prosecutor in any part of the country - based on what has been described in this thread about their relationship - could find any grounds, legitimate or not, for putting him in jail.

 

>6. You may not have meant to, but you did come off as

>defending the rights of older gentlemen to boink boys under

>18.

 

Men DO have the right "to boink boys" because the legal age of consent NOWHERE is 18. In addition to the point above, I was also making the point - and still am - that there's a huge difference between an 8 year-old boy and a 16 year-old young man, and to act as though they're the same is just irrational and hysterical.

 

>And in your blind hatred for all things FFF . . . .

 

This is so fucking amusing - where does this idea come from that the world revolves around FFF? Before this thread, I barely gave a thought at all to him - read a few of his posts, thought some were funny, was amused by how hysterical the prostitutes became when he was writing what he wrote - and that's it. This idea that anything I've written is the by-product of some passionate emotion about

this "FFF" thing is amazing.

 

If you have any doubts about what he meant - check out his latest posts again accusing others of being attracted to boys as the reason they don't share his disgust for Weber - exemplifying exactly the point I made at the beginning about gay men believing and using the pedophilia myth.

 

>Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, maybe you

>can offer your opinion on my initial question: Do you think

>it's odd that no critic (and perhaps I should have been more

>explicit about saying "no critic" rather than "no one.") has

>ever brought up the fact that Weber's relationship with

>Johnson would probably have aroused the ire of the legal

>system had he been (a) less well-known and (b) living in a

>more conservative community?

 

No, I don't at all. There are vastly different moral standards in NY/SF/LA and other places where Weber flourishes than in Missisippi. Is that news to you? Mapplethorpe shoved whips up his ass - in Cincinnatti, curators of his show got arrested; in Manhattan, people paid (and still pay) $100,000 for it. What's the shock?

 

I think Weber himself is creepy because I think it's inherently creepy to crave the intimacy and sexual love of someone 40 years younger than you. I think lots of people here fall into that sphere. No argument on his creepiness. I just think accusing him of crimes and child molestation and NAMBLA affinities was completely baseless and unfair, and the by-product of the dangerous pattern of gay men believing and spewing the pedophilia lie. That's what caught my attention and prompted me to write.

[Guest exFratBoy]

>The worst, most inaccurate, most harmful canard about gay

>men is the pedophilia myth -- that gay men are far more

>prone to child molestation than the average person, that

>it's dangerous to allow gay men around boys, etc. It's so

>pervasive and insidious that many, if not most, gay men

>themselves have come to internalize it, and believe it to be

>true at their core.

 

Actually TT, if you would re-read the very first post on here, you will find that I made the same point. I said that I found Weber particularly distastesful because he reinforces that myth-- that gay men are pedophiles.

FFF seconded that by saying yes, the relationship was "borderline NAMBLA." I took that to mean that he too felt that Weber was reinforcing a negative gay stereotype-- that we are all secretly NAMBLA members.

You unfortunately took his turn of a phrase and ran with it, reading into it all sorts of things that were never intended.

 

 

>

>So I look at this thread and I see phrases like "Child

>molestor" and "imprisoned for 20 years" and "NAMBLA" being

>tossed around -- based on NOTHING other than the fact that

>this likely gay photographer lived with and took photographs

>of a 15 or 16 year-old boy, breaking NO LAWS in the process,

>and without any evidence at all suggesting that there was

>anything sexual that occurred.

>And it seems pretty clear to me that, whether consciously or

>not, those who were recklessly throwing around such

>*extremely serious* accusations were doing so based on the

>premise that it is inherently dangerous (or at least wrong)

>to allow a gay man, especially a middle-aged gay male, to be

>near a teenaged boy, because any such situation --

>regardless of any evidence of wrongdoing or even sex --

>necessarily entails dangers of "child molestation" and

>NAMBLA.

 

I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion. Yes, the phrases you highlight were used in posts, but never in the way you seem to be interpreting them. They were all various ways of making a point that you yourself keep making:

 

(And I quote you: >I think Weber himself is creepy because I think it's

>inherently creepy to crave the intimacy and sexual love of

>someone 40 years younger than you. I think lots of people

>here fall into that sphere. No argument on his creepiness.

 

FFF said that to "crave the intimacy and sexual love of someone 40 years younger than you" was "borderline NAMBLA." You called it "creepy." I think you were reading way too much into his clever phrasing. (My shrink would have a field day with that, but let's not get into that.)

 

 

>

>>4. Do you really believe that if Weber was just some guy

>>living in say, Mississippi, taking pictures of an unrelated

>>teenage boy who was living in his house, the DA wouldn't

>>have found some reason to throw him in jail?

>

>I don't think any prosecutor in any part of the country -

>based on what has been described in this thread about their

>relationship - could find any grounds, legitimate or not,

>for putting him in jail.

 

To quote Starr Jones this time: "As a lawyer" I'm sure that many prosecutors could find a reason to prosecute.

 

>

>>6. You may not have meant to, but you did come off as

>>defending the rights of older gentlemen to boink boys under

>>18.

>

>Men DO have the right "to boink boys" because the legal age

>of consent NOWHERE is 18. In addition to the point above, I

>was also making the point - and still am - that there's a

>huge difference between an 8 year-old boy and a 16 year-old

>young man, and to act as though they're the same is just

>irrational and hysterical.

 

Granted, but I can't seem to find anyone other than you making that distinction. Or bringing 8 year old boys into the conversation at all. Or even vaguely implying that Weber did anything physical to Johnson. The closest thing I can find is FFF's "borderline NAMBLA" comment.

It seemed to many of us that you inserted this issue into the conversation, and thus I can see how it seemed, to some people, at first glance, that you were advocating man-boy love.

 

 

 

>>Well, now that we've gotten that out of the way, maybe you

>>can offer your opinion on my initial question: Do you think

>>it's odd that no critic (and perhaps I should have been more

>>explicit about saying "no critic" rather than "no one.") has

>>ever brought up the fact that Weber's relationship with

>>Johnson would probably have aroused the ire of the legal

>>system had he been (a) less well-known and (b) living in a

>>more conservative community?

>

>No, I don't at all. There are vastly different moral

>standards in NY/SF/LA and other places where Weber

>flourishes than in Missisippi. Is that news to you?

>Mapplethorpe shoved whips up his ass - in Cincinnatti,

>curators of his show got arrested; in Manhattan, people paid

>(and still pay) $100,000 for it. What's the shock?

 

Mapplethorpe's work is almost always described as shocking, and many critics have commented on how his work breaks barriers and shocks Middle America and glorifies S&M, etc., and how that fits in with the perception of gay men, sexuality, blah, blah, blah. Long before Cinicinnati. That is the focus of his work.

But no one has called Weber on the carpet for creating work that reinforces people's opinions of gay men as potential child molesters, out to grab nubile young teenage boys. It's all couched in bullshit language about "capturing the athletic form" and "creating all-American idols." Hell, I read half a dozen reviews of the movie, and not one of them commented on the fact that it was odd/creepy/exploitive that Johnson was living with Weber so he could photograph him at will. If Richard Avedon had a teenage girl living at his house so he could photograph her, I'm sure the odd/creepy/exploitive nature of the relationship would be the major focus of reviews.

That's the shock.

 

>

 

>I just think accusing him of crimes and child molestation

>and NAMBLA affinities was completely baseless and unfair,

>and the by-product of the dangerous pattern of gay men

>believing and spewing the pedophilia lie. That's what

>caught my attention and prompted me to write.

 

You have issues, TT. Nowhere did anyone (other than you) say this or even imply this. So I'm guessing this is a big bugaboo with you, and you sort of jumped the gun and saw a few words that made you think these were the issues people were talking about. Happens to the best of us.

[Guest DickHo]

HAMLET

Madam, how like you this play?

 

QUEEN GERTRUDE

The lady protests too much, methinks.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>The lady protests too much, methinks.

 

A penny saved is a penny earned. Have any other worthless Pop Psychology cliches to spew?

 

This is a thread protesting Weber's relationship with a 16 year-old male which entails speculation that Weber belongs in jail for 20 years; statements expressly proclaiming that he could be imprisoned for "child molestation"; and comparisons of him to NAMBLA - yeah, anyone who saw suggestions that he was guilty of pedophilia must themselves be a child molester. How else could such an inexplicable delusion be explained?

[Guest exFratBoy]

>This is a thread protesting Weber's relationship with a 16

>year-old male which entails speculation that Weber belongs

>in jail for 20 years; statements expressly proclaiming that

>he could be imprisoned for "child molestation"; and

>comparisons of him to NAMBLA - yeah, anyone who saw

>suggestions that he was guilty of pedophilia must themselves

>be a child molester. How else could such an inexplicable

>delusion be explained?

 

Where the fuck does it say ANY of that?

You are truly delusional TT, or incapable of admitting you are wrong. Not a bad person, not an evil man, just someone who read through a bunch of posts a little too quickly.

The only thing that is true in your drivel is that people found the relationship to be creepy. Now who were some of the people who "protested" that the relationship was creepy?

Let's see... me, FFF, and- oh yeah-- YOU!!

No one said he BELONGS in jail. I said a prosecutor in Praise Jesus, Mississippi would probably WANT to put him in jail. Not that I think he BELONGS there. Big fucking difference, n'est pas?

We also said that a person who was not a well-off, well-connected artist who was doing the things Weber was doing- in places like Praise Jesus, Mississippi and its neighboring hamlet of Die Faggotz-- MIGHT very well find himself in jail for photographing nude teenage boys. We did not say the guy in Mississippi SHOULD be in jail. Just that it seemed likely to us that he WOULD be. Should/Would-- those damn sound-alike words get tricky.

Now curiously, YOU were the one who brought up the entire pedophilia plot line with numerous Lady Gertrude-esque proclamations that "an 8 year old boy is incapable of giving consent. A 16 year old boy isn't." FFF finally took you to task for it, but nowhere on here does anyone challenge that assertion.

Damn.

[Guest cp8036]

Just two points/questions...

 

Is the book in black and white, or in color? I hope b&w, makes it look more arty.

 

Why is the book titled "Chop Suey", the guy is not Chinese?

 

After reading the above, this is all I can come up with.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>>This is a thread protesting Weber's relationship with a 16

>>year-old male which entails speculation that Weber belongs

>>in jail for 20 years; statements expressly proclaiming that

>>he could be imprisoned for "child molestation"; and

>>comparisons of him to NAMBLA - yeah, anyone who saw

>>suggestions that he was guilty of pedophilia must themselves

>>be a child molester.

 

>Where the fuck does it say ANY of that?

 

Your very first post included this: "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."

 

So, just as I said - this thread included "statements expressly proclaiming that he could be imprisoned for 'child molestation.'"

 

You were speculating that he would be sitting in jail for 20 years for CHILD MOLESTATION. Gosh, how could I have thought you were suggesting anything about pedophila? All you did was say that he could be imprisoned for 20 years for child molestation.

 

Your first post also included this: "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."

 

In fact, I'll just let your words and FFF's words on the topic speak for themselves, and if you don't see that these words are strongly suggestive of accusing Weber of pedophilic wrongoing, there is nothing else I can say to demonstrate it to you:

 

YOU: "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."

 

FFF: "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."

 

FFF: "Frankly, I think the whole thing was borderline NAMBLA."

 

FFF: "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."

 

"Creepy" is one thing.

 

Saying that he was Weber's "hostage"; that Weber would be in jail for 20 years for "child molestation" if he weren't well-known; that's his conduct is disturbing because it "confirms" the view of gay people as "pedophiles"; that he's guilty of "cruising" high schools; that it's "borderline NAMBLA"; that there's a commonality among those who "cruise elementary school playgrounds" and what Weber did - is fundamentally different, and if your own words don't demonstrate that to you, nothing I can say ever will.

[Guest DickHo]

Chop Suey as in mix bits.

 

From http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1110322/about.php:

 

Filmmaker Bruce Weber, whose last feature-length documentary was the award-winning LET'S GET LOST in 1988 (about jazz great Chet Baker), returns with this fascinating look at his life and career. Starting off as a film about model Peter Johnson, whom Weber snatched from a high school wrestling team and turned into a star for Ralph Lauren and other fashionistas, CHOP SUEY is a tasty mix of vintage color and black-and-white footage, still photos of everyone from Alfed Stieglitz and Georgia O'Keeffe to Montgomery Clift and Clark Gable, and insightful narration by Weber and Johnson about modeling, family, and the cult of celebrity. The film goes all over the place, but every side adventure is a worthy one. Teri Shepherd, manager and longtime partner of nightclub favorite Frances Faye, shares endearing stories of their exciting relationship; wrestler Rickson Gracie and surfer Christian Fletcher discuss what it was like becoming (homoerotic) sex symbols as seen through Weber's lens; aging explorer Sir Wilfred Thesiger and his book ARABIAN SANDS are featured; and former Vogue editor Diana Vreeland allows Weber in to shoot her fabulously tacky apartment. Other highlights include Robert Mitchum singing a duet with Dr. John and Weber talking about working with Jan Michael Vincent.

[Guest exFratBoy]

>>>This is a thread protesting Weber's relationship with a 16

>>>year-old male which entails speculation that Weber belongs

>>>in jail for 20 years; statements expressly proclaiming that

>>>he could be imprisoned for "child molestation"; and

>>>comparisons of him to NAMBLA - yeah, anyone who saw

>>>suggestions that he was guilty of pedophilia must themselves

>>>be a child molester.

>

>>Where the fuck does it say ANY of that?

>

>Your very first post included this: "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."

>

>So, just as I said - this thread included "statements

>expressly proclaiming that he could be imprisoned for 'child

>molestation.'"

>

>You were speculating that he would be sitting in jail for 20

>years for CHILD MOLESTATION. Gosh, how could I have thought

>you were suggesting anything about pedophila? All you did

>was say that he could be imprisoned for 20 years for child

>molestation.

>

>Your first post also included this: "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."

>

>In fact, I'll just let your words and FFF's words on the

>topic speak for themselves, and if you don't see that these

>words are strongly suggestive of accusing Weber of

>pedophilic wrongoing, there is nothing else I can say to

>demonstrate it to you:

>

>YOU: "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."

>

>FFF: "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."

>

>FFF: "Frankly, I think the whole thing was borderline

>NAMBLA."

>

>FFF: "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."

>

>"Creepy" is one thing.

>

>Saying that he was Weber's "hostage"; that Weber would be in

>jail for 20 years for "child molestation" if he weren't

>well-known; that's his conduct is disturbing because it

>"confirms" the view of gay people as "pedophiles"; that he's

>guilty of "cruising" high schools; that it's "borderline

>NAMBLA"; that there's a commonality among those who "cruise

>elementary school playgrounds" and what Weber did - is

>fundamentally different, and if your own words don't

>demonstrate that to you, nothing I can say ever will.

 

Well then I guess we've heard the last of you, because I still don't see how you get from point A to point B.

You have some serious issues dude. I mean to begin with, unless you are a social worker who deals with teenage runaways, or a lawyer who defends First Amendment pornography suits, your intense familiarity with the laws governing the age at which a teenager is considered a minor in all 50 states-- down to being able to cite the New York statute-- was scaring the shit out of me. This is not information the average person has handy.

Second of all-- nothing FFF or I said before your original "Victorian tean party" post supports your nonsensical view. Speculating that many a prosecutor would find what Weber did to be a career-making opportunity to prosecute someone who the general community would view as a "pervert" is not the same as saying I think he deserves to be prosecuted.

I'll make it easy. If I say that two guys holding hands at a straight redneck bar would most likely have the shit beat out of them is not the same as saying that I think they SHOULD have the shit beat out of them.

See, there are these silly words like "would" and "could" and they have a very different meaning than the word "should"

You see, "COULD" means "there is a possibility that x will happen." "WOULD PROBABLY" means that "there is a good chance that x will happen." "SHOULD" means "I strongly support x happening."

Now let's try that in a sentence, little TT: If I say "You could get arrested for having anal sex in Georgia" that means I am pointing out the possibility of that happening, whether I believe it is just or not. And if I say "You probably would get arrested for having anal sex in Georgia" that means I think there's a better than average chance of it happening, whether I agree with it or not.

Now-- here's where it gets tricky-- if I say "You SHOULD get arrested for having anal sex in Georgia" it means that I support Georgia's anti-sodomy laws and believe that violators (and violatees) should be prosecuted. Regardless of what the possibility of it actually happening is.

It used to throw me off too. Back in nursery school.

 

And TT, if a 50 year old guy making a movie about how he cruised a high school wrestling camp to find a 15 year boy that he could take back home with him and photograph naked ain't gonna make every homo hater think "see, I was right, they are a bunch of fucking pederasts!" I don't know what will.

What the actual legal age of consent is in most states is irrelevant to THEIR perception of what is going on. Capisce?

[Guest TruthTeller]

I keep getting lured back into answering you because I feel like you're about to have a breakthrough, even though rationally, given genetic constraints, I know that's hopeless:

 

>You have some serious issues dude.

 

Yes, yes - I've heard - That I objected to Weber being called a child molester and being compared to NAMBLA must mean that I, too, am a child molester. What other possible explanation could there be?

 

>I mean to begin with,

>unless you are a social worker who deals with teenage

>runaways, or a lawyer who defends First Amendment

>pornography suits, your intense familiarity with the laws

>governing the age at which a teenager is considered a minor

>in all 50 states-- down to being able to cite the New York

>statute-- was scaring the shit out of me. This is not

>information the average person has handy.

 

It's this funny thing I have - I know it's very bizarre - but if I'm making statements about a law, I actually like to know what the law says before I discuss what it says. I know this practice is foreign to you, who, in your unseemly eagerness to burn Weber at the stake, continuously spewed didcatically about the state of the law without having any fucking clue what you were talking about.

 

When you kept making false statements that what Weber did was illegal child pornography under the law, I went and looked at the relevant law; read it; and saw that what you were saying was utterly false, and then told you what the law actually said. I agree that this definitely makes me a child molester and shows I have "issues" - or, like Weber, makes me at least highly likely to be in jail for 20 years for child molestation.

 

>See, there are these silly words like "would" and "could"

>and they have a very different meaning than the word

>"should"

>You see, "COULD" means "there is a possibility that x will

>happen." "WOULD PROBABLY" means that "there is a good

>chance that x will happen." "SHOULD" means "I strongly

>support x happening."

 

This idea that you were merely saying - oh-so-non-judgmentally - that Weber COULD be prosecuted, without actually condemning what he did, is rank bullshit. It's amazing that you can even claim this with a straight face after saying that Weber "could" be put in jail for 20 years for CHILD MOLESTATION - along with saying that his behavior is "distribuing" because it "CONFIRMS" those who view gay men as pedophiles - that Weber was "crusing" high schools and is no different than those who cruise elementary schools - and that he kept a 15-year old boy as his "hostage".

 

You weren't merely speculating that Weber "could" be prosecuted by some overzealous, gay-hating prosecutor. You yourself - along with your FFF alter-ego - were endorsing and conveying the precise sentiments which would motivate such a witch hunt.

 

>Now let's try that in a sentence, little TT: If I say "You

>could get arrested for having anal sex in Georgia" that

>means I am pointing out the possibility of that happening,

>whether I believe it is just or not. And if I say "You

>probably would get arrested for having anal sex in Georgia"

>that means I think there's a better than average chance of

>it happening, whether I agree with it or not.

 

Yes, that's all true; unfortunately for your denials, that isn't all you said. In your nice anal sex example, if - in addition to saying that could get arrested - you also said that someone's having anal sex was "disturbing"; that it made them a pervert; that it confirmed the perception of gay men as sex-crazed animals; that it was no different than cruising elementary schools; and that what he was doing was "borderline NAMBLA" - all of which you/FFF said about Weber - then it would be manifestly clear that you weren't merely "predicting" that the person may be prosecuted, but were also condemning what he did as worthy of punishment.

 

>Now-- here's where it gets tricky-- if I say "You SHOULD get

>arrested for having anal sex in Georgia" it means that I

>support Georgia's anti-sodomy laws and believe that

>violators (and violatees) should be prosecuted. Regardless

>of what the possibility of it actually happening is.

>It used to throw me off too. Back in nursery school.

 

As I said, you didn't merely predict non-judgmentally that Weber may be subject to the abusive behavior of a prosecutor; you and your sidekick expressed the precise sentiments which would underlie such conduct, exposing your newfound insistence that you were merely "predicting" to be the transparent sham that it is.

 

>What the actual legal age of consent is in most states is

>irrelevant to THEIR perception of what is going on. Capisce?

 

If your only point -- as you're now trying to reduce it - was that certain people (but not you of course - never) would perceive that what Weber did should be illegal, then you should have saved the bandwith, because there was no point in making such a painfully self-evident observation. But you did much, much more than that. You also predicted that he'd be put in jail for 20 years as a child molester - and the legal age of consent is VERY VERY relevant to that "prediction".

 

I don't blame you for wanting to backtrack from what you said - I would do the same thing if I were you. But no matter how many times you imply that I'm attracted to boys by telling me I have "issues," your words -- "sitting in jail for 20 years for child molestation," etc. etc. -- aren't going to disappear.

[Guest SD Mike]

You guys are fucking awesome. It’s like watching an intellectual WWF match! You beat the shit out of each other with verbal kung fu and the nuance of words. I know you’re not here for my entertainment value, and others have no doubt grown bored, but I could read this stuff all day.

 

If you three weren’t on your college debate teams (not exactly where the cool people hung) you missed your calling. I just wish we had a panel of judges to declare a winner at the end because you guys will probably keep body slamming each other until the match is called.

[Guest exFratBoy]

your words -- "sitting in

>jail for 20 years for child molestation," etc. etc. --

>aren't going to disappear.

 

Here's my original post:

 

>>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??>>>

 

I stand by every word of . If you can read that to mean that I think prosecutors should be lining up to throw Weber in jail for child molestation, you have even more issues than I thought. And I don't buy for a minute that you were so offended by a post on a board discussing male prostitutes that you actually bothered to spend the time looking up the relevant laws in all 50 states so you could best me on a trivial point.

I also stand by the statement that Weber's cruising high school wrestling camps looking for 15 year old boys to turn into what he calls "homoerotic icons" is sick. And that it is just what every homophobe thinks we all secretly want to do.

And unlike you TT, I think there's something very wrong with teenagers of either sex being sexualized by men 30 or 40 years their senior. And that while a 15 year old is in a better position to make a decision than an 8 year old, he's still not in the same position as an 18 year old. If that makes me a "prude" or a "prig" in your book, so be it.

You're a fucking sick pervert in mine.

 

PS: This is my last post on this topic. I have already wasted far too much billable time answering you.

 

PPS: (For the rest of you) The reason I have such strong feelings about this is that when I was in college, I did a community service project working with teenage runaways, that shook the hell out of my cozy little upper middle class suburban frat boy existence. Many of these kids (all of whom were between the ages of 14 and 17) were taken advantage of by older men. And whether they sucked dick for dollars or just posed naked for a camera, they were pretty traumatized by it all.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>And I don't buy for a minute that you were so

>offended by a post on a board discussing male prostitutes

>that you actually bothered to spend the time looking up the

>relevant laws in all 50 states so you could best me on a

>trivial point.

 

I don't think it's trival for you to assume the moral stance of a church lady, publicly scream MOLESTER at someone, and accuse them of breaking laws - when, in reality, the whole shrill finger-pointing is based upon your complete ignorance of the laws about which you're preaching, as well as your need to prove to the straight people whom you obviously fear that - unlike those perverts over there, whom you're attacking for their amusement - you're not after their kids.

 

>I also stand by the statement that Weber's cruising high

>school wrestling camps looking for 15 year old boys to turn

>into what he calls "homoerotic icons" is sick.

 

Good little fag boy - the straight people will pat you on your head for showing them that you have morals, too.

 

>And unlike you TT, I think there's something very wrong with

>teenagers of either sex being sexualized by men 30 or 40

>years their senior. And that while a 15 year old is in a

>better position to make a decision than an 8 year old, he's

>still not in the same position as an 18 year old. If that

>makes me a "prude" or a "prig" in your book, so be it.

>You're a fucking sick pervert in mine.

 

I agree that it's very perverted to object to someone being publicly declared to be a child molester even though they didn't molest any children.

 

>PS: This is my last post on this topic. I have already

>wasted far too much billable time answering you.

 

If - as you desperately want everyone to know - you're a lawyer, then your behavior is particularly repugnant, given that your entire Victorian female potsuring was based upon your belief - which you expressly stated several times - that Weber's conduct was prohibited by laws, when that was simply false. That makes you not only a cowardly self-serving moralizer, but also professionally irresponsible and inept.

 

>PPS: (For the rest of you) The reason I have such strong

>feelings about this is that when I was in college, I did a

>community service project working with teenage runaways,

>that shook the hell out of my cozy little upper middle class

>suburban frat boy existence. Many of these kids (all of whom

>were between the ages of 14 and 17) were taken advantage of

>by older men. And whether they sucked dick for dollars or

>just posed naked for a camera, they were pretty traumatized

>by it all.

 

It's so fucking appropriate that you ended your participation in this thread with this charming, moving little Oprah moment, given that you began the thread with the shrill accusations of a misinformed, offended housewife.