James Levine - it's about time

[Kenny]

He is denying everything.....

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/arts/music/met-opera-james-levine-trovatore-luisa-miller.html?smid=fb-share&referer=http://m.facebook.com

Ugh.

 

“James Lestock, 67, said on Thursday evening that he stood by his account.

 

“He is lying,” he said of Mr. Levine’s statement in an email. “The examples of instigating sex with a minor, physical abuse using physical pain leading to break down crying, all happened. I will take a lie-detector test. Will he?”

 

Mr. Lestock said that he was a 17-year-old cello student at Meadow Brook when he was abused in Mr. Levine’s dorm room. He described numerous later incidents of abuse; he said that once Mr. Levine had pinched him painfully until he cried, and then continued pinching him, to wound him.

 

And Chris Brown, 66, who played principal bass in the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra for more than three decades, stood by his account that Mr. Levine had abused him the summer before his senior year in high school, when he was 17.

 

“Sexual abuse at any age is inexcusable,” he said. “Further, belittling those of us who were abused as less than fully human is repugnant. I stand by the story.”

[BaronArtz]

I have never approached young men in restrooms or on the Internet. I haven’t approached young men in bars, where they are of legal age, in decades.

 

And your post is about coercion, in which I have never engaged.

 

Really ... what are you doing on a site like this one? This is ALL about obtaining services from desirable young men.

[BaronArtz]

He is denying everything.....

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/arts/music/met-opera-james-levine-trovatore-luisa-miller.html?smid=fb-share&referer=http://m.facebook.com

 

Right. As he should. How can anyone prove what happened or didn't happen 40+ years ago?

 

This is a sleazy effort to embarrass and bring down an innocent gay man.

[+ quoththeraven]

After the rumors, the payouts and multiple witnesses, people are still going to act like Levine's word is worth something?

 

The allegations paint a picture of a man attracted to high school students for whom he was an authority figure whom he abused physically as well as sexually. How is that not predatory?

 

By imposing a "lalala I don't hear you" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard" (or, given alleged payoffs to parents, a "buy silence to protect our meal ticket"), the Met appears to have enabled continuing abuse of minors in a manner not that different from the Catholic Church or, arguably, Michael Jackson.

 

For an already-retired Levine to no longer be welcome at the Met is not some violation of his civil rights.

Edited December 8, 2017 by quoththeraven

[rogerG]

That's not a world I want to live in.

Well, enjoy that trip to Mars.

 

Older men's affection for the company of younger men (and vice-versa) has been going on for centuries. In some cultures, it's considered "normal." I doubt a media hyped "me-too" movement in the U.S. is going to end the allure and fascination. Many of these intense bonds are not fueled by predatory behavior. But I imagine the line can get easily crossed, depending on the motives and sexual appetites of certain individuals.

[hornytwells]

Right. As he should. How can anyone prove what happened or didn't happen 40+ years ago?

 

This is a sleazy effort to embarrass and bring down an innocent gay man.

How do you know he is innocent? I loathe trial by public media and think only those who are involved really know the facts, but there have been far too many people over the years that I trust who have confided such stories for me to believe or say with any certainty that he is 'innocent"?

[rogerG]

How do you know he is innocent?

Exactly. In any he-said/she-said situation, "truth" is very difficult to ascertain.

 

At this moment, the "victims" are receiving mostly benefit of doubt. We'll see how long this lasts.

[BaronArtz]

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not by a public witch hunt in the media.

[+ WilliamM]

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not by a public witch hunt in the media.

 

Years ago, the Met should have seriously investigated allegations about Levine's possible sexual activity with young boy. Instead the company just asked Levine.

 

The last few mindless posts in support of Levine are shocking.

[Kenny]

This is a sleazy effort to embarrass and bring down an innocent gay man.

You neglected to mention their motive.

[Kenny]

Really ... what are you doing on a site like this one? This is ALL about obtaining services from desirable young men.

I repeat, your (obnoxious) post was about coercion. This site is not in fact “ALL about” coercing desirable young men.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Kenny

[+ sniper]

If all his accusers were people who never made it and were desperate for money, I could find it plausible that a couple fished for money and others were just piling on the gravy train once the story got out. But the fact that a couple of people who moved on and had quite successful careers on their own afterward are now coming forward to say he abused them too, to me, is damning. They have absolutely nothing to gain from this. They're just doing this so that the others will be believed.

[Kenny]

Exactly. In any he-said/she-said situation, "truth" is very difficult to ascertain.

Is it any easier for you in a “he said/he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said” situation?

 

Also, the “court of law” stuff is a dodge. There will be no trial. Holding that as your standard is just a cowardly way of giving him a pass.

[rogerG]

Is it any easier for you in a “he said/he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said” situation?

If 7 men come forward and complain about sexual harassment, then it would not be difficult for me to believe the 7 men.

[Kenny]

If 7 men come forward and complain about sexual harassment, then it would not be difficult for me to believe the 7 men.

Four down, three to go.

[+ quoththeraven]

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not by a public witch hunt in the media.

Why? No one's trying him in court.

 

Reputations are won or lost every day in the court of public opinion for all sorts of reasons. That's true in our personal lives too. We make decisions about the actions of others without proof beyond a reasonable doubt all the time. Why should this be different?

 

Levine could sue for defamation, but if the reporting behind the stories is solid, he'll lose and he opens himself up to discovery and even more reporting on the allegations. Also defamation suits, like all civil suits, don't work on the basis of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not.

 

All this does is say someone's statement that they didn't do it has more weight than any amount of claims.

[+ quoththeraven]

If all his accusers were people who never made it and were desperate for money, I could find it plausible that a couple fished for money and others were just piling on the gravy train once the story got out. But the fact that a couple of people who moved on and had quite successful careers on their own afterward are now coming forward to say he abused them too, to me, is damning. They have absolutely nothing to gain from this. They're just doing this so that the others will be believed.

There's a danger, though, that those who were discouraged from pursuing their dream career and thus suffered the most damage will have their claims minimized because of that. At this point they have no legal ability to receive compensation; the statute of limitations on a civil suit has expired and requesting payment would look a lot like extortion.

[+ quoththeraven]

Four down, three to go.

That seems pretty arbitrary. I can understand skepticism about one accusation of past conduct for which there is no independent evidence, but barring specific suspicious circumstances, two should be enough to take action of some sort and three begins to look like a pattern.

[+ quoththeraven]

Well, enjoy that trip to Mars.

 

Older men's affection for the company of younger men (and vice-versa) has been going on for centuries. In some cultures, it's considered "normal." I doubt a media hyped "me-too" movement in the U.S. is going to end the allure and fascination. Many of these intense bonds are not fueled by predatory behavior. But I imagine the line can get easily crossed, depending on the motives and sexual appetites of certain individuals.

You seem to have missed the allegations of physical abuse. Also by that reasoning it's perfectly okay for men to fuck teenage girls. That also has a long history and many teen girls welcome such attention, thinking it's romantic or a sign of maturity.

[rogerG]

You seem to have missed the allegations of physical abuse.

I read the story, and I don't think Levine is merely a mentor. It seems he crossed the line I mentioned earlier.

 

Also by that reasoning it's perfectly okay for men to fuck teenage girls.

I wasn't "reasoning" in defense of Levine or any other sexual predator. But I do question whether men are different (from women) in the company of boys.

 

There's a male bonding thing that seems innate to some of us. A boy's dick changes when he passes through puberty, and that change makes many boys curious about adult cock. Adult men never forget these changes, and we remember the game, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." I "played" with several adult males before I turned 16, and most of those guys were straight. I just happened to be a curious teen. Nobody ever attempted to molest me, but clearly I had adult males in my life that were worthy of my trust, and they understood my curiosity. They taught me a lot about being a sexual male.

 

Like I said, this "thing" in us males has been with mankind for centuries.

Edited December 8, 2017 by rogerG

[+ quoththeraven]

I read the story, and I don't think Levine is merely a mentor. It seems he crossed the line I mentioned earlier.

 

 

I wasn't "reasoning" in defense of Levine or any other sexual predator. But I do question whether men are different (from women) in the company of boys.

 

There's a male bonding thing that seems innate to some of us. A boy's dick changes when he passes through puberty, and that change makes many boys curious about adult cock. Adult men never forget these changes, and we remember the game, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." I "played" with several adult males before I turned 16, and most of those guys were straight. I just happened to be a curious teen. Nobody ever attempted to molest me, but clearly I had adult males in my life that were worthy of my trust, and they understood my curiosity. They taught me a lot about being a sexual male.

 

Like I said, this "thing" in us males has been with mankind for centuries.

I agree that the differences in anatomy matter. Even with less shame surrounding female sexuality, girls don't have a noticeable protuberance that some may think begs to be played with. (Though the only difference during puberty that I'm aware of is greater length/size in proportion to overall growth and the ability to ejaculate.)

 

I also tend to bristle at claims of male (or gay or lesbian) exclusivism. For one thing, we're more alike than we think, and we all have homologous tissue. Tissue that in male-bodied individuals develops into a penis develops into clitoris. Yes, there may be a handful of inherent differences, but it's impossible to tell and even if we could, there are as many or more differences within genders as across genders.

[rogerG]

we're more alike than we think

But yet we are still uniquely different.

 

I'm not making any "claims of exclusivism." I'm simply acknowledging something that exists among many men that does not seem to exist among women.

[Walker1]

I must be a country bumpkin. Until this thread, I didn't know who Levine was.

[+ WilliamM]

I must be a country bumpkin. Until this thread, I didn't know who Levine was.

 

I may not have known either until trying standing room at the Met around 1983. Kiri Te Kanawa was starring in La Traviata.

 

Listening to the conversations around me during intermission was extremely valuable.

[+ sniper]

I agree that the differences in anatomy matter. Even with less shame surrounding female sexuality, girls don't have a noticeable protuberance that some may think begs to be played with. (Though the only difference during puberty that I'm aware of is greater length/size in proportion to overall growth and the ability to ejaculate.)

 

I also tend to bristle at claims of male (or gay or lesbian) exclusivism. For one thing, we're more alike than we think, and we all have homologous tissue. Tissue that in male-bodied individuals develops into a penis develops into clitoris. Yes, there may be a handful of inherent differences, but it's impossible to tell and even if we could, there are as many or more differences within genders as across genders.

 

At the same time, I do think it's fair to say that being penetrated is both physically and emotionally a different experience.

 

I think there are plenty of entire male sports teams where all the guys have grabbed each others penis at one time or another and they don't even think of it as sexual, just something they do for comic effect and everybody laughs about it. The straight rugby teams I have interacted with all seem to do this sort of thing - the gay ones don't, I suspect because the contact means something else to them.

 

And I think that in turn leads to guys thinking "a little horseplay" is no big deal and inadvertently enables worse stuff to go on.