Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



iscoffy ([info]iscoffy) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2006-04-06 13:38:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:*Snarl*

So much for the light of the virgin morning...
So, according to the New York Post, Broadway actor James Barbour (watch out, his links tend to be rather Scientology-related), star of shows such as Urinetown, Jane Eyre, and Beauty and the Beast, has been arrested for sex abuse and sodomy, apparently accused by a now 19 year-old aspiring actress who was 15 at the time of their, er, alleged encounters. That's pretty much all the information that there is at this point.

Unsurprisingly, theatre message boards explode. BroadwayWorld seems to be bogging down in "let's not speculate," although there are such stunners as:
Sodomy
It's between
God and me
And also James!...


and

I'm selling T shirts:
"I slept with James Barbour and all I got was a lousy pamphlet on Silent Birth"
anyone want??


But of course, All That Chat is where the battle begins.

There's all the usual whenever rape comes up, questioning the news source, suggesting the accuser should 'move on', outrage at the term 'move on' and questionable comparisons, suggestions that the accuser is doing it for the attention (of course casting agents will think, "Get me the girl who was sodomized by James Barbour/accused James Barbour of sodomizing her!" any time they are casting), the irresistible urge to mock Scientology, the usual in-fighting, it's all there. And seeing as no one really knows anything but everyone is apparently going to talk about it anyway, I don't see it stopping any time soon.



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Random question:
[info]ladysorka
2006-04-06 09:53 pm UTC (link)
...didn't sodomy laws go the Supreme Court and get over-turned a few years ago? Or was that just a specific kind of sodomy law?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Random question:
[info]greenling
2006-04-06 10:25 pm UTC (link)
That's what I was thinking. o.O

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Random question:
vomitymcpuke
2006-04-06 10:48 pm UTC (link)
THE CUTTING EDGE!

*loves on you*

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Random question:
[info]iscoffy
2006-04-06 11:10 pm UTC (link)
From here:

"The Supreme Court in the USA has recently struck down sodomy laws which outlawed consensual, same-sex adult sexual activity. In some states, it is unclear how the decision will be applied to their laws. If you are unsure about the age of consent in your state then it is a good idea to seek clarification from your state government."

How that applies to statutory rape and opposite-sex sexual activity, I have no idea.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Random question:
[info]freezer
2006-04-07 10:50 am UTC (link)
IIRC, sodomy is generally used as an aggravating factor in sex crime charges. Much like "Intent To Distribute" is tacked on to drug charges to make them more serious.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Random question:
[info]iscoffy
2006-04-07 10:46 pm UTC (link)
That was my conclusion, but it could also be the NY Post trying to add extra scandal, I suppose.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map