HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Kevin Clash, Elmo Puppete...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:28 AM

Kevin Clash, Elmo Puppeteer, Resigns

Source: New York Times

Kevin Clash, the longtime voice and puppeteer behind Sesame Street’s Elmo character, has resigned in the aftermath of allegations — which Sesame Workshop had previously said were unfounded — that he had an underage sexual relationship. In a statement released Tuesday, Sesame Workshop said:

Sesame Workshop’s mission is to harness the educational power of media to help all children the world over reach their highest potential. Kevin Clash has helped us achieve that mission for 28 years, and none of us, especially Kevin, want anything to divert our attention from our focus on serving as a leading educational organization. Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding Kevin’s personal life has become a distraction that none of us want, and he has concluded that he can no longer be effective in his job and has resigned from Sesame Street. This is a sad day for Sesame Street.

Mr. Clash has played Elmo on “Sesame Street” for decades. He was profiled in a documentary last year, “Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey.”

The sexual accusations were made public last Monday, then later recanted by a 24-year-old man who has remained anonymous. The episode led to Mr. Clash coming out as a gay man, something he had not previously discussed in public. “I have never been ashamed of this or tried to hide it, but felt it was a personal and private matter,” he said in the statement last week.

Read more: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/k



This sucks.

105 replies, 12771 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 105 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kevin Clash, Elmo Puppeteer, Resigns (Original post)
onehandle Nov 2012 OP
efhmc Nov 2012 #1
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #2
MADem Nov 2012 #5
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #9
AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #11
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #39
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #23
oberliner Nov 2012 #18
MADem Nov 2012 #20
oberliner Nov 2012 #59
MADem Nov 2012 #71
oberliner Nov 2012 #72
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #40
oberliner Nov 2012 #60
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #89
oberliner Nov 2012 #92
pnwmom Nov 2012 #30
MADem Nov 2012 #38
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #53
pnwmom Nov 2012 #57
MADem Nov 2012 #75
pnwmom Nov 2012 #58
MADem Nov 2012 #76
pnwmom Nov 2012 #80
MADem Nov 2012 #83
pnwmom Nov 2012 #86
MADem Nov 2012 #90
LanternWaste Nov 2012 #46
tavalon Nov 2012 #98
Javaman Nov 2012 #3
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #7
Javaman Nov 2012 #12
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #14
Javaman Nov 2012 #15
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #16
MADem Nov 2012 #21
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #26
MADem Nov 2012 #34
pnwmom Nov 2012 #68
MADem Nov 2012 #70
pnwmom Nov 2012 #67
MADem Nov 2012 #73
targetpractice Nov 2012 #17
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #25
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #27
MADem Nov 2012 #35
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #43
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #65
pnwmom Nov 2012 #69
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #88
pnwmom Nov 2012 #95
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #105
MADem Nov 2012 #77
WinniSkipper Nov 2012 #93
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #64
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #41
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #63
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #87
yardwork Nov 2012 #97
pnwmom Nov 2012 #31
MADem Nov 2012 #36
pnwmom Nov 2012 #50
graegoyle Nov 2012 #54
pnwmom Nov 2012 #55
MADem Nov 2012 #78
MADem Nov 2012 #4
oberliner Nov 2012 #19
MADem Nov 2012 #22
pnwmom Nov 2012 #32
MADem Nov 2012 #37
pnwmom Nov 2012 #48
MADem Nov 2012 #84
pnwmom Nov 2012 #85
MADem Nov 2012 #91
pnwmom Nov 2012 #94
BuelahWitch Nov 2012 #100
pnwmom Nov 2012 #103
oberliner Nov 2012 #61
Laurian Nov 2012 #6
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #10
Laurian Nov 2012 #13
pnwmom Nov 2012 #47
MADem Nov 2012 #74
pnwmom Nov 2012 #81
MADem Nov 2012 #82
SoapBox Nov 2012 #8
WhoIsNumberNone Nov 2012 #24
graegoyle Nov 2012 #52
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #28
sweetloukillbot Nov 2012 #44
oberliner Nov 2012 #62
pnwmom Nov 2012 #49
AlbertCat Nov 2012 #29
alp227 Nov 2012 #33
LaydeeBug Nov 2012 #42
eppur_se_muova Nov 2012 #45
lalalu Nov 2012 #51
pnwmom Nov 2012 #56
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #66
oberliner Nov 2012 #79
BuelahWitch Nov 2012 #101
LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #96
hexola Nov 2012 #99
graham4anything Nov 2012 #102
Pterodactyl Nov 2012 #104

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:32 AM

1. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:40 AM

2. What's the inside scoop on this?

I've seen a snippet or two and it seems there is some contraversy about the age of the accusing man at the time of the relationship? Am I right?

On the plus side, this opens up the voice role for Chris Walken who I sincerely hope will accept the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:50 AM

5. No -- you aren't right. The controversy was invented by the accuser, looking for a payday.

He recanted.

This isn't funny. It is a tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:06 PM

9. He recanted the recantation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:07 PM

11. He recanted the recantation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

39. Yes.

Then he allegedly recanted his recanting.

At this point, who knows what to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:45 PM

23. When?

Cite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:16 PM

18. No - you are wrong. There is a second accuser.

Making a similar accusation.

That's what has led to the resignation.

And the first accuser wants to reverse the settlement and pursue his case.

Seems like the accused is trying to buy people off to prevent the truth from coming out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:38 PM

20. They need to pursue charges then. Step up and step out.

I believe in innocence until proven guilty.

Do you have a link WRT this additional material?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to oberliner (Reply #59)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:38 PM

71. We'll have to see how this shakes out.

I'm betting none of these charges would have been were it not for that documentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #71)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:39 PM

72. Indeed

I really enjoyed that documentary and have been an admirer of Mr. Clash for some time. I hope that he did not do the things he is accused of. If he didn't, I hope he is able to clear his name. If he did, I hope he faces the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

40. Or maybe, just maybe

he's innocent and doesn't want it to drag out in court. Celebrities get sued all the time and settle just to avoid the publicity and everything else. There are people who make CAREERS out of suing celebrities.

If they have evidence against him, fine. But why do we always assume that the accused is guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #40)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

60. Fair enough

I do think it is worth noting though that he has publicly stated that he had a sexual relationship with this person when the person was only 18 (and the accused was in his 50s). This is, of course, not a crime but it's not like he denies knowing or having a relationship with the person in question, just the age at which it began (This is in regard to the first accuser).

I do agree with you, however, that the fact that civil lawsuits rather than criminal charges are being pursued exclusively at this point is somewhat questionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #60)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:29 AM

89. He was in his forties, but

his willingness to admit that they had a relationship at all makes me believe that Clash may be telling the truth.

And as disgusting as some of us may find the age disparity to be, there are many men in their forties who would happily sleep with an attractive eighteen year old and many women as well.

If they are past the age of consent, they're past it and the accusation against Clash should not be colored by the fact that he had a relationship with a consenting adult—if this is what truly happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #89)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:47 AM

92. Sorry - that's what I meant

Forties, thank you for the correction.

I do agree that he may be telling the truth, but I also don't like the idea of attacking the accusers. It is quite possible that the first accuser was pressured into changing his story - he certainly has indicated as much.

I agree that, of course, there are many men in their forties who would happily sleep with an attractive eighteen year old. I daresay there are also many men in their forties who would happily sleep with an attractive sixteen year old if they thought they could get away with it. I know that the former is legal and the latter is (generally speaking) not, but I think that the two desires are certainly similar in many respects.

I also agree that if he has done nothing illegal and had a relationship with an eighteen year old then he should of course have his name cleared. If either of these young men is lying then they should face consequences for doing so. I am just saying that I would be more inclined to believe that the allegations were false and simply attempts at a money grab if the accused did not actually have a sexual relationship with this person when the accuser was eighteen.

I hope that eventually the truth does come out and that justice is served. On that, I am sure we can agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:45 PM

30. You don't know that. There's a second lawsuit now by another accuser.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/kevin-clash-resigns-elmo-sex-allegations_n_2165663.html

If Clash were a Catholic priest, would you be saying the same thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:07 PM

38. Catholic priests generally molest prepubescent children, not sexually active teens who seek out

companionship on gay sex phone chat lines.

Clash didn't meet this young man at the county fair, he met him on a "Must be 18" phone sex line (why do people go on those things? To get help with their homework?) --and we don't know if he was of age, or not--those facts seem to be in considerable dispute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:07 PM

53. Actually most priest victims were post-pubescent

High school boys, not 2d graders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:36 PM

57. Thank you. That's correct. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:55 PM

75. No, that is not accurate--between eleven and fourteen years old, on average.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/4_3_incident3.pdf

Table 4.3.2 represents the age of the alleged victim at the time of the alleged event. If the event
continued for multiple years, this table represents the age at which the abuse allegedly began.
Each alleged victim is only represented once. Therefore, this table does not represent the
duration of abuse or the ages of the alleged victims throughout the time they were abused. For
instance, if a child was sexually abused from the age of three to nine, he or she is represented in
this table at age three.
The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17, and just over half (50.7%) of all
individuals who made allegations of abuse were between the ages of 11-14. The average age
of all alleged victims is 12.6. This number has increased over time, however. In the 1950s, the
average age was 11.5; in the 1960s it was 12; in the 1970s it was 12.87; in the 1980s it was 13.2;
and by the 1990s it was 13.87


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

58. No halfway intelligent person would expect that everyone on an over 18 line

is actually over 18.

When he met the boy in person it was up to him to check his age. It's always the responsibility of the adult, not the child.

Check out the statutory rape laws in your state. They apply the same, whether the underage person is a girl or a boy.

(By the way, I haven't seen anything in these articles that say the chat lines were for over 18's. I'll have to take your word on that.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:57 PM

76. I'm going on what I see on the television commercials.

Which say "must be eighteen."

Also, I invite your attention to the statistics re: priest abuse found at the link in post 75. Most children were between 11 and 14 who were molested by priests and the average age was 12.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #76)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:30 PM

80. The average age during the decade when this even supposedly occurred, according to the table,

was almost 14.

Although I don't know if "average" is meant here as "mean" or "median."

But are you telling me in your opinion it's okay at age 16 but not at age 14?

You don't think statutory rape laws should apply if he did have sex with the boy at age 16?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:46 PM

83. I am not saying that anything is "OK" though you seem eager--nay, ANXIOUS--to put those kinds of

words in my mouth. It's a pretty shitty thing you're trying to do here, too, with your accusatory tone. I must say I don't care for it much.

If you'll look at the link I provided, the average age, according to the report, was 12. I mentioned that solely because YOU were the one who tried to suggest the age was higher.

I can wait for justice. I just can't understand why you want to fry this guy ahead of a judge and jury. What's your motivation? What did this guy ever do to you?

What if he is innocent, and is the victim of a shakedown? What if he was your brother, your cousin, your uncle, your child? Would you be so eager to convict the guy when the evidence isn't even in?

Patience is a virtue. Try it sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:42 AM

86. Where have I said anything that indicates I think there is evidence he is guilty?

The average age of boys molested by priests has been rising over the decades. By the 1990's it had risen to almost 14, as you state in your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:50 AM

90. You have done nothing but make insinuations in our conversation, here.

I must say, it makes for an unproductive exchange of ideas. You have an attitude about the guy (he should "check IDs" for example--really? Like anyone does that; no one on an "over 18" line is actually over 18? Again--really? Who knew? And all of this conversation about priests--last I checked, Elmo's handler wasn't one of those, so why even drag them into the conversation, in an effort to "associate" him with them?) before he's even been before a judge.

If he's guilty, we'll know soon enough. If he's not guilty, there's no where he'll be able to go to get his reputation back.

The guy suing him for five million has some rather unorthodox photos that have surfaced online at Gothamist. I'll wait for the judge/jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:39 PM

46. I don't think the Vatican has a history of consistently protecting puppeteers...

"If Clash were a Catholic priest, would you be saying the same thing..."

I don't think the Vatican has a history of consistently protecting puppeteers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:17 AM

98. Ouch

Kevin Clash is Elmo. Let's just leave that be for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:42 AM

3. Nothing worse than the character assassination of a good person. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:58 AM

7. Or letting a rapist go free because they are famous

It seems this Clash person is a chickenhawk.

But this is the DU way. Remember the outpouring of support for another famous rapist, Roman Polanski?

BTW, why do you think Clash is a good person? Because you saw that documentary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:09 PM

12. Um what? The guy who accused Clash retracted his statement.

and your very odd point is?

on edit: no, I never saw the Doc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

14. Then another guy has come forward

http://gawker.com/5962135/second-man-accuses-elmo-voice-actor-of-underage-sex-says-he-has-a-thing-for-teenage-boys?post=54460960

My opinion is that we will have more dudes coming forward in the next few weeks. Think Seville, think Sandusky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:12 PM

15. Ahhh that's different. I had no idea of the others. I'll have to read up on it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:14 PM

16. I just assume everyone knew

I'm ignorent that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:43 PM

21. Don't you have to state that you are eighteen to go on those chat lines?

That's what my television says--"must be eighteen to call" when you see all these sexy young things lounging around in their underwear "just waiting to talk to you."

I think a halfway decent lawyer could defend the guy. Time will tell, though. There's just not enough info to know if this is a shakedown or a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:56 PM

26. I was under the impression that it was one of those party-line thingys

And what does it matter? Statutory rape is a strict liability offense. Saying he looked over 15 is not a defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:51 PM

34. Yes--those telephone line things. "Must be 18" is what my TV tells me.

Are you in the habit of carding everyone you've ever had a relationship--casual or otherwise-- with?

If you meet someone in a bar, don't you assume they are over 21?

There is a defense there, particularly if there was an active intent to deceive.

Rob Lowe didn't go to jail for his misconduct with an underaged girl, one of a pair he met in a bar, and he assumed they were older than they were. And there was a video tape of that encounter!

The lawyers will have to take it on--I don't think the gavel should come down with a guilty verdict just yet, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #34)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:01 PM

68. In a bar you know someone (the bartender) has checked the ID's of drinkers.

There is no one to check ID's on a phone chat line.

Statutory rape is still against the law, no matter what happened with Rob Lowe. But he did have the excuse that the girl must have shown an ID in order to be served alcohol. No one has to present ID to go on a telephone chat line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #68)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:33 PM

70. Are those chat lines free, or do they cost x cents a minute?

Surely there needs to be a credit card or a charge to a phone bill, or something--and the pressing of a number or some other verification process for the agency hosting to get paid? These things aren't charities, are they?

Obviously the bartender or bouncer didn't check the IDs of the Lowe 'rompers.' Or he or she didn't do a very good job of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:57 PM

67. Clash isn't accused of raping anyone while on a chat line.

He met the boy in person, and that's when he should have verified his age.

And the ages of any other young men he got involved with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #67)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:45 PM

73. Again, you meet someone in a bar, do you "card" them later?

I don't think so. Also, he's not accused of having
"sexual intercourse" with the kid--and this does look like the guy is being shaken down.

Clash did not address the new allegations. He said previously that he had an adult and consensual relationship with the first accuser. The divorced father of a grown daughter, he acknowledged that he is gay.

At a news conference Tuesday, Singleton said he and Clash met on a gay chat line when he was 15, and for a two-week period, they had sexual contact but not intercourse. He said he didn’t know what Clash did for a living until he was 19 and Googled his name.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/sesame-workshop-says-elmo-actor-kevin-clash-resigned-calling-sex-allegations-distraction/2012/11/20/47b67eb0-332f-11e2-92f0-496af208bf23_story.html?tid=pm_entertainment_pop

Why would "what he does for a living" matter? Do we sue wealthy puppeteers, but not, say, janitors or garbagemen?

Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:15 PM

17. He claims he recanted and settled under duress for $125K.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:56 PM

25. I am not one of Polanski's apologists

I believe he should go to jail. But then, he plead guilty, then ran from the country. I would hardly call the ranting of a vocal minority of Polanski apologists an "outpouring"

Mr. Clash has been ACCUSED of a crime, but his accuser recanted. Polanski's victim never recanted.

The situation here is different, and until we see actual charges filed and a trial conducted it is unfair to call the man a "chickenhawk".

According to late breaking news accounts, the original accuser has recanted the recantation, and another person has made an allegation. I await the evidence before I will make a final judgement. Accusations of being a child molester are incendiary, and I believe that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, as it does in ALL criminal prosecutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:59 PM

27. Clash admits relations with the initial accuser, but that the dude was 18 (or 17) at the time

Clash was over 40 I think. By and reasonable standard Clash is a chickenhawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:56 PM

35. I think Donald Trump's habit of trading in his wives for younger models is reprehensible, too.

I don't know what kind of "hawk" he would be, but it's not illegal.

There's no fool like an old fool. Having a young person on one's arm only makes one look older--but some think they will grow younger by osmosis, or something.

If the kid was "of age," it may be distasteful, but it's not illegal. Also, I don't think, if someone calls a sex chat line, that they are looking for fashion tips or directions to the public library. When you want groceries, you go to the grocery store. When you want clothes, you go to the clothing store...etc., etc., and so forth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:30 PM

43. What's the heterosexual equivalent of a "chickenhawk?"

If an older man or woman goes after eighteen year olds of the opposite sex, why don't we have an equally salacious name for them?

Last I heard, Harrison Ford married a woman who is twenty-two years younger than him. What word do we have for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

65. Horndog.



You make a valid point. I think people's comfort level with the hetero side increases once the female passes 20. Ages with "teen" in them invoke the "ick factor" even when above the age of consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:03 PM

69. If she's 22 years younger she's a mature woman in her 40's.

That's nothing like the disparity between a 16 or 18 year old and a man in his 40's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:21 AM

88. Did I say it was?

I simply asked what's the heterosexual equivalent of a chickenhawk?

My comment was about the prejudice against homosexual behavior, as opposed to similar heterosexual behavior.

But, hey, let's talk about Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith. He was in his twenties and she was fourteen when they first got together. What label do we apply to Johnson? Movie star?

And, come to think of it, why isn't he in jail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #88)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:00 AM

95. Does "first got together" mean having sex?

Wikipedia says they began dating when she was 14. It doesn't say they began having sex then. But he wouldn't have gone to jail anyway if Griffith's parents didn't report him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #95)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:21 AM

105. Uh, okay, I'm sure it was just chaste little goodnight kisses... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #43)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:59 PM

77. Dirty old man? No fool like an old fool? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #77)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:37 PM

93. I believe it cradle robber nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:18 PM

64. There are two definitions of chickenhawk

Which was news to me. The first is as you describe, but the other refers to men who have sex with underage boys, and this usage dates to the 60s-70s, my era of cultural education.

I accept that you are using the first definition and that it is accurate in that context and stand corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #25)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:26 PM

41. I'm not a Polanski apologist, either, but

He WENT to jail. He did the time he was sentenced to do.

It long ago came out that Polanski was the victim of a vainglorious judge who went back on his ruling and decided to make an example of Polanski -- a decision that was frowned upon by the assistant district attorney, who felt the judge was overstepping his bounds and has said as much.

I get so tired of hearing that Polanski needs to do his sentence. He DID it. He simply ran AFTER HE WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL, when he heard that the judge had changed his mind and was planning to sentence him to life.

I abhor the crime, but I also value the criminal justice system, which has enough problems without a judge abusing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #41)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:13 PM

63. He spent time

in a psych unit in Chino (42 days) being evaluated before final sentencing. His evaluation was part of what would be considered in his final sentence.

Now, he plea bargained, but all such deals are conditional on certain things, and judges are not bound by them unless adhered to the letter. The RIGHT thing to do was stay and appeal his sentence if the judge acted in bad faith, instead he ran and made himself a fugitive.

I am NOT a believer in plea bargains. I think that people should be charged with a crime and then the jury should decide. Anything else is a perversion of justice.

In any event, 42 days in a psych facility is hardly adequate punishment for the rape of a 13 year old child.

Was the judge a dick? Probably. Even the victim thinks so. But one thing is VERY clear, any person lacking Polanski fame and wealth would never have gotten the plea deal Polanski got, nor would he have been able to evade the police as long as he did..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #63)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:11 AM

87. The psych facility

was in A PRISON, and if you've ever been to Chino, you know it wasn't a picnic. Also, the psychiatrists cleared him and said it was very UNlikely that he would be a repeat offender. That eval was supposed to be his entire sentence, if he cleared.

The guy did his time.

EDIT: By the way, currently, statutory rape in California can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony, based on the prosecutors discretion and is punishable by up to a year in jail. Back in the seventies, when Polanski plead guilty, it was based on a plea deal for considerably less time, and the average sentence for such a crime was far less than a year.

Polanski DID his time and was victim to a judge who honored his own ego over the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:01 AM

97. Neither of the accusers has said anything about rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:47 PM

31. But when the accused is a priest here, people are all over it.

Why do we assume this guy is a "good person"?

He has a second accuser now, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:58 PM

36. The priests that invite ire are the ones that are molesting CHILDREN.

Not sexually active young adults who call sex chat lines.

If this guy is accused of interfering with an eight year old, that's a different story. I haven't seen any accusation of that nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:59 PM

50. Statistically, the large majority of priests accused of abuse abused underage teens,

not prepubescents.

They're in the same situation as Clash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:11 PM

54. Were they calling phone chat hotlines?

I'm not saying Clash is innocent. Nor am I saying he is guilty. We do not have all the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graegoyle (Reply #54)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:31 PM

55. Maybe some of them were. But what's the point? Clash's accusers

are accusing him of more than talking on a chat line.

You're right -- we have virtually no facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:01 PM

78. Average age is 12. That's not the same situation at all.

And these priests didn't meet their victims on a phone sex chat line, either. They met them at church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:49 AM

4. I agree that this sucks, too. Did he jump or was he pushed?

I wonder if Children's Television Workshop didn't give him a shove with a platinum parachute, or something.

I don't like that this happened. I get the sense that the cretins that Bush put in during his reign of terror had input into this outcome.

I hope he does something BIG in his post-Elmo career. He's way too talented to just go gently into obscurity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:17 PM

19. Are you serious?

Have you been following what's going on? There are now multiple accusations of similar conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:44 PM

22. As I said upthread, don't you have to be eighteen to go on a chat line?

Or, at least, REPRESENT yourself as being eighteen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #22)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:47 PM

32. Even if children represent themselves as 18, it's still up to the adult to KNOW. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #32)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:01 PM

37. Like Rob Lowe knew?

Not all teen agers look like teen agers. Ones that one meets in bars...or on "must be 18" sex chat lines are usually considered to be "of age."

How much due diligence is required?

It's the rare person who has never--for whatever reason--lied about their age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:53 PM

48. I don't know anything about that situation. But I've told my own sons that at the very least

there should be a driver's license with an over 18 birthday on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:50 PM

84. Don't let your sons go to New York.

Plenty of people don't have driver's licenses.

Don't be surprised, either, if your sons don't take your advice while they're in the throes of enthusiastic passion.

I'm no expert on today's "hook up" or whatever they call it scene, but I don't think 'carding before sex' is the norm amongst most "actively dating" people these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #84)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:18 AM

85. Doesn't matter. It's up to the adult to make sure that his or her prospective partner is of age.

Statutory rape laws don't allow an "I didn't know" defense

Very few 16 year old boys look like adult men. Just looking at Cecil's photo now, it's hard to imagine that he looked like an adult at 15. Clash should have been very suspicious on the basis of appearance alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:53 AM

91. That's absurd--when an "adult" assumes he or she is dealing with another "adult," there isn't

an exchange of IDs happening.

Ask Rob Lowe.

You might want to google the two fellows accusing Mister Clash. Both look MUCH older than their stated ages, and they are, as they say "of a type."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #91)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 09:57 AM

94. If Clash, like Lowe, was deceived by minors carrying fake ID's, that should let him off the hook.

But his lawyers haven't made that claim.

I saw the pictures of the accusers and disagree that they look older than their ages. And they would have looked even younger as teens. Any adult who wants to have sex with someone should know the person well enough to know that he's also a consenting adult -- even if that means asking for an ID.

You don't like that, but that's the law.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:12 PM

100. There are always fake IDs

Several of my friends had them back in the day when we were too young to go to the bar. I would imagine they are lots easier to get now, or to have one made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuelahWitch (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:47 PM

103. Of course. But then the burden of proof is off the adult

and onto the minor who produced the fake ID.

If the adult doesn't even try to make sure he's dealing with a minor, then he's leaving himself wide open to charges of statutory rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #22)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:51 PM

61. I don't know

Perhaps more details will come out in the coming days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:53 AM

6. Unfortunately, according to TMZ a second accuser has come

forward saying he also had a sexual relationship with Clash that began when he was underage. Who knows, these people could just be seeking money or revenge. I think the situation just reached critical mass and his association with Sesame Street became too difficult to maintain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:07 PM

10. "money or revenge"? Because accusing the voice of ELMO is a sure bet?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

13. I said it "could" be money or revenge. It could also be that the accusations

are true. How would anyone other than those involved know at this point. The first accuser received a monetary settlement from Clash. Might that have motivated the second accuser? Even if money was the motivation, it does not necessarily mean the accusations are false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:52 PM

47. People said the same thing about the Penn State coach -- at first. The only thing

we know about Clash right now is that we don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:48 PM

74. Not many people. The Penn State coach was molesting little children.

This guy had contact with people who called in looking for partners on a gay sex chat line. They weren't on that telephone looking for a recipe for pumpkin pie.

Those little kids weren't actively seeking sex on the telephone. They were attacked by a coach in the shower or in their beds with no where to run.

We don't know the details, but on the very surface these two circumstances are not at all the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #74)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:32 PM

81. So you think victims of statutory rape are basically asking for it?

That statutory rape of a minor isn't real rape?

Did it occur to you that maybe a teen might be trying to find other gay teens to talk to, not an older man to groom him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #81)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:40 PM

82. Let's wait, why don't we, to determine two things.

First, are these people victims?

Second, was there any rape, statutory, or otherwise?

I don't know anything more about the "quality" or "character" of this "sex chat line" than you do--but I don't think he was looking for teen advice on a line of that nature. You're saying you do? Do "teen sex chat lines" even exist?

As I said, if you want groceries, you go to a grocery store.

You seem eager to convict this guy on the word of two people, at least one of whom came forward after he "googled" the guy and figured out he was that big famous puppeteer, the one in the documentary.

I can wait for the facts to sort themselves out without demanding the guy's head on a plate. If he's guilty of anything, we'll know soon enough without convicting him here on DU, before the gavel comes down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:05 PM

8. Sad indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

24. Great. Just what PBS needed.

I can just imagine what the right wingers will be screaming about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoIsNumberNone (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:05 PM

52. Gingrich! Sanford! Ensign! Wide Stance!

Just for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:24 PM

28. 'Elmo' puppeteer Kevin Clash resigns as second man files lawsuit over new underage sex allegations

Kevin Clash resigned on Tuesday after a second man came forward to say he had sex with the 'Sesame Street' voice actor and puppeteer when he was a teen.
By Robert Gearty , Barbara Ross , Philip Caulfield AND Larry Mcshane / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 11:39 AM
... According to the suit, Clash met a then 15-year-old Cecil Singleton on a gay chat line in 2003 and soon began wooing the youngster — taking him to dinner and giving the youth money.

“As a 15-year-old child, Cecil Singleton was not emotionally or psychologically prepared for a sexual relationship with a grown man in his 40s,” the suit said ...

Singleton, now 34, suffered “psychological and emotional effects” from the relationship, the lawsuit charged ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/elmo-resigns-new-accusations-article-1.1205034



Voice of Elmo NEW LAWSUIT: Allegations of Sex with SECOND Underage Boy
UPDATE ... 8:40 AM PT -- The accuser's lawyer has filed new court docs, in which the date of the alleged abuse has been changed from 1993 to 2003. The accuser also says he is currently 24-years-old ... and chalks up the mistake to a typo ...
... The accuser -- who is now in his 30s -- has filed a lawsuit against Clash ... claiming the two met on a gay phone chat line back in 1993 ... when the accuser was 15 years old and Clash was 32 ... In the suit, Singleton claims ... although the sex occurred nearly 20 years ago, he didn't take action until now because ... he "did not become aware that he had suffered adverse psychological and emotional effects from Kevin Clash's sexual acts and conduct until 2012" ...

http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/20/voice-of-elmo-kevin-clash-sued-allegations-sex-underage-boy-sesame-street/




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:44 PM

44. Those dates don't add up...

Says he had a relationship 19 years ago w/ Clash who was in his 40s at the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetloukillbot (Reply #44)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:54 PM

62. 9 years ago, not 19 years ago nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #28)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:56 PM

49. According to one of those articles, the first accuser wants to give the settlement money back now

and he's recanting the recanting.

He thought he was the only one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:45 PM

29. I met him when I worked on the 1st Ninja Turtle movie.

He was a very sweet man.... nice, polite, calm.... I liked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:48 PM

33. As someone who watched sesame during the clash era

94? to 97, this is some sad news right here. I'll see what the criminal justice system gets out of the accusations before passing judgment. I don't want Clash to be the American Jimmy Savile (JS was a star of a British family show/other prominent media of the 20th century who died in 2011, then this year people came forward claiming Savile molested them as kids).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:30 PM

42. this is absurd. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:32 PM

45. He had to resign. He clearly violated the Uniform Code of Muppet Justice. nt

(Yeah, I know, inappropriate. But it wanted out.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:05 PM

51. I don't care who he is if he was

 

molesting minors he should resign and be in jail.


However, I still think names and photos should not be released unless actual criminal charges are filed. Innuendos and lawsuits are not enough because anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. In the meantime the person can be court ordered to stay away from kids while there is an investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:35 PM

56. Either we're serious about statutory rape laws or we're not.

Are some of the comments here the progressive version of "real rape" vs. less real rape?

IF he had sex with underage teens, that's a serious charge, no matter how much we like Elmo.

But we have NO facts here. No evidence that he is an abuser OR that his accusers are lying and out for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

66. I agree

The problem with out of court settlements is that the evidence is never aired in court of law (whether criminal or civil). Of course, I totally understand why a victim would take a settlement rather than have to go to court and I don't think that taking a financial settlement necessarily means that a person is lying. I don't know how reliable TMZ's sources are in this case but supposedly the accuser who recanted his allegation was in tears during the settlement meetings. This is a very disturbing case but some of the reactions are equally disturbing as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:02 PM

79. Kevin Clash Accuser Insists He Didn't Lie and Wants Out of Settlement

The voice of "Sesame Street" famous character Elmo, Kevin Clash, has a new problem on his hands. Just when he thought that he could quietly resume his life once again and go back to work, a new twist happens in his case.

According to a report from TMZ, Sheldon Stephens, the struggling actor/model who accused the 52-year-old puppeteer of having sex with him while he was underage, insists that he did not lie about his story. He now also wants to undo the settlement deal he signed just a few days ago.

The 23-year-old Stephens also claims that he did not want to sign the agreement in the first place, but was pressured to do so at that moment. He regrets signing the deal and is now talking to lawyers in Los Angeles who could help him undo his actions.

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00055644.html#ixzz2CpIm81lb

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #79)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:17 PM

101. "...the struggling actor model..."

This and the fact that he didn't know who Clash was until he Googled him makes me go, "Hmmm."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:06 AM

96. I wonder if Genia agrees that he never lived in the closet.

Hiding means different things to different people, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 11:20 AM

99. Here's the thing...ELMO SUCKED!

Sorry...but GROVER RULES!

Elmo represented the commercialized version of Sesame Street...good riddance!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:50 PM

102. Does anyone find the timing after Bird Bird was so prominent in the election suspicious?

 

and please no "tickle me elmo" jokes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #102)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:45 PM

104. Yeah, it's a good thing this was under wraps until after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread