Yeah I saw that online yesterday and meant to click on the link and blog about it. Admittedly I haven't been following the R. Kelly trial at all but isn't the girl in question 14 years old?!

I don;t think CNN is positing an opinion, I believe they are trying to use pithy alliteration to illustrate the conflicting stances taken by the defense and the prosecution.

Also the story is an AP story which is being run by CNN.

Now if you want to call out Kelly's defense team for trying to depict the victim as a "vixen" then you'd be right on.

I personally would like to ask the lawyers "If your kid will let me piss on him/her for an x-box, you'd be cool with that, right?"

I hear a loud ringinig in my ears.... I think my brain is about to explode.

i saw it, too, and forgot about it. must've been my way of trying to pretend that it actually wasn't there because i was so abhorred by the title of the story. vixen? 13 year old girl being called a vixen?!? are you kidding me?

i saw it, too, and forgot about it. must've been my way of trying to pretend that it actually wasn't there because i was so abhorred by the title of the story. vixen? 13 year old girl being called a vixen?!? are you kidding me?

i saw it, too, and forgot about it. must've been my way of trying to pretend that it actually wasn't there because i was so abhorred by the title of the story. vixen? 13 year old girl being called a vixen?!? are you kidding me?

The defense attorney refering to a 13-year-old as a "woman" sure is a neat trick. But I suppose it wouldn't be quite as effective to say: "That child is a prostitute."

(uck)

"I personally would like to ask the lawyers "If your kid will let me piss on him/her for an x-box, you'd be cool with that, right?""

*spits coffee on screen*

Wow. I just laughed about this story and it's all your fault! I feel so dirty.

Needless to say, it's disgusting. I also read a magazine that described Roman Polanski as a person who "had sex" with a 13 year old (I know this issue was brought up in a previous thread). Seriously, it's like the idea of *informed* (adult or reasonably close) consent is alien to these people. I get that in many cultures/religions the age of adulthood can be quite young, but I just can't get past this whole '13 is the new 16/17' thing that seems to be going on here. Or how they conveniently forget that these perpetrators were 30 and 40 somethings, not hapless (adult) teenagers.

Being an adult means having adult responsibilities. Will a young teen do almost anything to please a massively popular celebrity? Some will. That's why her consent is irrelevant as a matter of law. The one with the obligation to say, "this is not right and we cannot do this" is the adult.

Consent is not a defense to the rape of a child, and that's as it should be.

"Woman?" Seriously?

Even if the girl in question were of age, the attorney's statements are still disturbing. Many prostitutes aren't victims, but he is basically saying they can never be. Sex workers can still be raped, beaten, tortured, and those are still crimes.

Just to be clear, the defense is presenting the proposition that the person on the tape is not in fact the 13-year-old in question. Of course they are going to use the word "woman" as a further rhetorical tactic to reinforce that point. Essentially they are referring to "that woman," implying "not this girl."

Just one more example of why I'm disgusted with our legal system. Criminal cases should be about establishing the facts as clearly as possible, not about introducing as much doubt as you can. If prosecutors can get in trouble for fabricating evidence, defense counsel should equally get in trouble for fabricating bogus alibis.

Let's not forget that the victim is African American and thus more easily compared to an animal (vixen= female fox) and associated with a prostitute.

I hate how this is being handled by the media and general public, even though I am pro-prostitution and pro-child labor. I just get a little confused when the two mix. However, most people are completely against these two things yet they want to call this girl a vixen and a prostitute. Perplexing.

That pisses me off. Once again, rape culture is fucking showing its ugly head. Does it fucking matter if she's a "vixen?" This is not to mention that fact that no 13-year-old can be "vixens."

I suppose if you're a "vixen," you can't be a fucking victim, huh? And you thought Fox News was bad.

On a somewhat related note: I am doing research on date and so-called "gray rape," and the constructions of gender roles, porn culture, "masculinities," and how they can all be linked to rape. I'd be interested in speaking to both women survivors and men who want to talk about how they behave in sexual situations and such ...this will go toward a book I hope to finish by the new year. If you're interested in answering a few questions, please let me know at mloix002@odu.edu

Thanks!

Let's not forget that the victim is African American and thus more easily compared to an animal (vixen= female fox) and associated with a prostitute.

I hate how this is being handled by the media and general public, even though I am pro-prostitution and pro-child labor. I just get a little confused when the two mix. However, most people are completely against these two things yet they want to call this girl a vixen and a prostitute. Perplexing.

Damn Puters! Sorry for the multi-post folks.

even though I am pro-prostitution and pro-child labor.

Excuse my ignorance Gesyckah but why would someone be "pro" child labor?

Gesyckah, I have never encountered anyone on a blog who said he or she was "pro-child labor." You might be able to persuade me (and others), but I don't know what you mean.
(composed before UltraMagnus's post came through)

It took interacting and arguing with people from Commonwealth nations while in Japan to convince me why finishing school at 18 and four year university were not necessary, nor any guarantee, that a person will have a decent life or career. Despite the about 98% 12th grade graduation rate in Japan (closer to 70% in the US*), compulsory education in Japan, as in numerous other nations, ends at 9th grade (usually 15). What a person does after that, is up to them and their families (though near 100% of Japanese continue schooling AND graduate). If they would like to go to work or become an apprentice in a trade such as traditional Japanese cooking or carpentry, that is up to them. Leaving school legally at 15 does not necessarily mean being condemned to a life of poverty or dead end jobs, though I hope my children consider high school graduation a minimum entry level to a mainstream career in the US.

* "Three out of 10 US public school students do not graduate from high school, and major city school districts only graduate one out of two students, according to a study released Tuesday."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080401184532.kxjxy7xo&show_article=1

Japan has nursing high schools and other vocational schools, i.e., in place of an academic track, the 10th to 12th grades are devoted to training young professionals. This has interesting results, such as 16 year old girls in traditional whites doing work study in hospitals on adult male patients (my coworker took photos). I also met my wife in a community center cooking class taught by a restaurant owner who had simply dropped out of school at 14 (his brother was also a head chef at a large wedding hall in the city). My father in law also started work as a laborer at 14 to support his family and put his two brothers, older and younger, through high school and university, eventually retiring from civil service (the Japanese postal system). If a young person is mature enough to set adult goals, one may find difficulty trying to convince them why study of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, or foreign language is necessary for them. Even less so, if their family's financial circumstances actually require their contribution, one more reason that underprivileged young people may not finish high school or make it to university.

P.S. 100% of my work income in 2007 was derived from a Ben Stiller film titled "Tropic Thunder," due for release on August 15th.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/tropicthunder/

Some of you may finally see what I look like. One unintended star of the film is a 12 year old Asian boy appearing as a Vietnamese guerilla leader, making his professional screen debut. I got to see him every day. Let's just say that he has a bright future, and his family is financially better off for it (he was earning about 35 times what I was, every single day). I suggested to him that he would find himself much more popular among the girls when he returned to public school in California.

Feminism has clearly failed to expand the dictionary's stock of words beginning with the letter V. You all need to think about this failure and see how you can help this poor man alliterate more skillfully.

Maybe some child laborers can be put to the task.

Thanks A Male. Yes, child acting is child labor, as well as helping parents or neighbors on farms. I guess you all thought I was talking about "bad" child labor like sweat shops, theft, and selling drugs? Just to clarify, no, I'm not in favor of those...I'd rather children work fair hours for a fair price in a safe, sanitary factory. If kids need the money they'll find a way to get it.

As further contribution to one part of this conversation I consider Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors" to be the Bible on child sexuality.

Thanks peeps, you really made me feel radical.

WTF A male? I have absolutley no idea what that diatribe was supposed to add to the conversation or who it was directed to. Are you trying to back up Gesyckah and their pro-child labor comment?

Perhaps we have different discussions of "child" seeing as I don't consider a 15 year-old as a "child" they're teenagers and most of them are allowed to get jobs (though most of those are menial at best and without an education, nepotism or just plain luck many of them will be stuck there).

How in the hell you can site ONE movie shoot as a good example boggles my mind. That kid got lucky. And unless Hollywood starts filming in developing nations on a regular basis and hiring local talent in minor rolls every single there won't be many opportunities like that.

"I'd rather children work fair hours for a fair price in a safe, sanitary factory."

What's wrong with the family farm, provided they do have opportunities for schooling? A lot of farmers cannot afford hired help or mechanization.

Gesyckah,

While you use acting as a case of "child labor" again, it's a very specific circumstance and I don't know how much you know about the entertainment industry but there are very strict rules as to when and how long child actors are allowed to be on set, which is far shorter than adults. They have mandatory schooling hours (at least three) and their parents (for better or for worse) are often on set with them and or a tutor/teacher. It's not until they're of age or emancipated can they work like adults.

I'd rather children work fair hours for a fair price in a safe, sanitary factory. If kids need the money they'll find a way to get it.

If that and the film example the best you can come up with for being pro-child labor then that's fucking shameful. Perhaps you should be considering WHY they need the money (poverty more than likely) instead of shrugging it off as if it's nothing. CHILDREN shouldn't have to work, PERIOD.

"Perhaps we have different discussions of "child" seeing as I don't consider a 15 year-old as a 'child' they're teenagers and most of them are allowed to get jobs (though most of those are menial at best and without an education, nepotism or just plain luck many of them will be stuck there)."

I thought people under 18 not being competent to make choices was the point of the R. Kelly trial. Are they, or not?

And this is why I needed to interact with foreigners from industrialized nations, living in a foreign country for 12 years, to understand their points of view, and why their nations and laws are not like in the US. You apparently don't get it either, just like I didn't get it, back in 1993.

BTW, it is common in rural areas of Japan at least, to have elementary to intermediate school children plant fields of rice in the name of education. Be certain that the increasingly aging rice farmers appreciate this free labor, because even in a prosperous nation like Japan, farm labor is likely limited to one's own family members or neighbors, not hired help, and they may consider mechanized planters or harvesters out of the question.

"How in the hell you can site ONE movie shoot as a good example boggles my mind."

I gave numerous examples of minors working, and there are thousands of children in US entertainment, not one.

"That kid got lucky. And unless Hollywood starts filming in developing nations on a regular basis and hiring local talent in minor rolls every single there won't be many opportunities like that."

That movie was filmed in the US, with Americans. And there are many opportunities in entertainment, though luck or who you know are certainly involved. It also helps not to have a job, if one wishes to be available for film shoots which may take place at anytime 24/7. This disqualified over 90% of hundreds I saw audition, even if they had prior screen experience or were members of the screen actors guild.

UltraMagnus: ""

How about chores? Chores contribute to the well being of the household. Barring unsafe work conditions and the limiting of whatever access to education would exist for a given area why is farm work or paid labor of a limited duration so shockingly wrong seeming to you?

Most of the great accomplishers in history have had to contribute to their family's welfare at an early age than adulthood. I'm not saying the world will be better off if little kids make sneakers for 16 hours a day, but are you saying that working is inherently bad for kids?

A male is not Gesyckah, BTW. I am simply interested in issues of economic inequality.

"Perhaps you should be considering WHY they need the money (poverty more than likely) instead of shrugging it off as if it's nothing."

The fact of life for hundreds of millions of underprivileged children worldwide (or even millions of teens in the US), is their labor is necessary for the family. Be certain that I have looked into their stories or the factors involved, or lived among the underprivileged myself, even in the US. How many acres can you till, plant and harvest yourself? How many fish can you catch? How many rugs can you weave? How many head of livestock can you watch? How many laborers can you pay a living wage to do the work for you, on a developing nation income? Most national governments are hardly equipped (or motivated) to bring an end to poverty, US included.

"CHILDREN shouldn't have to work, PERIOD."

Not for money anyway. This is what people in industrialized nations can say, because in general, we have not been there since my grandparents' time. Please reflect on why the US created summer school breaks in the first place, and what children (that is, down to elementary age) were meant to be doing during that time. Economies in other nations are labor intensive, as in agricultural, and the adults there simply don't make a living in offices or shops while their children are taught, fed, and looked after in government subsidized schools*. With limited natural resources, this will not change appreciably. Most humans will never live like North Americans, Western Europeans, or Eastern Asians, and those in industrialized nations will not sacrifice (i.e. bring themselves "down" to the level of those in developing nations) to share the wealth.

*While working in Japan, I read or heard many heartbreaking stories about e.g., how school lunches had to be instituted in one Thai community, because teachers noticed how many children would "ditch" class, in order to forage food such as grass, from the surrounding forest or jungle. Also about Thailand, there are reasons many boys become or dream of becoming professional kickboxers from the age of eight, or some rural families sell their daughters into prostitution. It isn't right, but until the people's basic needs are met, even laws, international finger waving, or limited assistance won't stop it.

Just wait, in 30 years HBO will run some sob story "documentary" about how R. Kelly is just misunderstood.

Have you seen "The Boondocks" episode on this incident, or Dave Chappelle's standup routine "For What It's Worth"? I consider them classic. Huey was right:

"We all know the n_____ can sing. But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums? You a fan of R. Kelly? You wanna help R. Kelly? Then get some COUNSELING for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some older women. Hide his camcorder! But don't pretend the man is a hero!"

I thought the same of Michael Jackson. Twice. I continue to like his 1970s-1980s music, but he has problems. He could have used some time in an institution, for counseling, if nothing else. Joe Jackson simply should not have been an influence in the Jackson children's lives*, even if that meant the world going without their music. There was a time Michael Jackson should have been supervised with his own children as well.

*Speaking of child labor, or living off one's children. Jeez. Yes, it is quite common in the entertainment industry (or among those who wish their children to be stars), even with modern child labor laws.

Blueberry---Actually, the child in the Roman Polanski case claims that she did not consent (to the extent that a 13-year-old can). She claims that she had previously drank and had sex (which I think is a good sign that she knows the difference between consensual and non.) So it is rape even independent of her age.

A male--I've seen posters for that movie, and want to see it. Good for you. One of my sisters has been somewhat involved in the entertainment industry. (Not as an actor.)

I think part of the confusion is that the incident took place about ten years ago and (I forget exactly why) the trial was delayed. The victim is now an adult.

Not that any of this changes the underlying fact: R.Kelly raped a teenage girl.

The law is very clear that any person under the age of consent cannot have legal sex with an adult. This is hwy it is called statutory rape, it is rape by law, even if the victim wished to have the experience. The point of the law is that most teenagers are unable to exercise the proper judgment and give in formed consent, and are more easily taken advantage of, especially by a famous entertainer/singer.

However, in some jurisdictions, if the perpetrator is within 5 years of the victim's age, they are not charged with statutory rape - but some lesser sexual crime. I don't know how old R.Kelly was ten years ago.

Also, the victim in the R.Kelly case must be a reluctant witness, otherwise these cases rarely go to trial since the law allows a perpetrator little wiggle room for a defense.

david

I understand why people are upset that the word vixen was used.
This is however how I read this article.

" Prosecutors said they would not ask the alleged victim to testify. The defense hasn't said whether they will, though Kelly attorney Sam Adam Jr. asked jurors in opening statements why prosecutors chose not to call her.

"One answer," he said, his voice booming. "One: It's not her on that tape.""

After saying that, the defense went on to say this:
"He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. "The woman on that tape is getting paid," he said. "The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.""

Here, I am reading that they are saying that there is no alleged victim, that it is not her in the tape, but a prostitute. They are not saying the victim was a prostitute, rather that it wasn't her, but a prostitute in the tape.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this is really how I've read it.

Um, UltraMagnus? I worked as a child. I used to help my dad at his shop (he was a plumber) doing basic filing and even answering the phone and taking messages when I was pretty young -- before high school. Also, when I was about 10, I used to go to the American Legion on Sunday mornings and help serve breakfast to the old folk, and wash dishes. I got tips. It wasn't because we were broke, and I wasn't forced to do it. I wanted the cash! And it was fun.

Having kids work a few hours a week is good. It teaches them responsibility. And how to save money, etc.

Both of those "jobs" both helped to hone my customer service skills, which is now a huge asset of mine. I was able to communicate with adults at a young age. I got a job after school working for the public defender's office in my home town, a few months shy of my 16th birthday, for instance.

I understand why people are upset that the word vixen was used.
This is however how I read this article.

" Prosecutors said they would not ask the alleged victim to testify. The defense hasn't said whether they will, though Kelly attorney Sam Adam Jr. asked jurors in opening statements why prosecutors chose not to call her.

"One answer," he said, his voice booming. "One: It's not her on that tape.""

After saying that, the defense went on to say this:
"He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. "The woman on that tape is getting paid," he said. "The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.""

Here, I am reading that they are saying that there is no alleged victim, that it is not her in the tape, but a prostitute. They are not saying the victim was a prostitute, rather that it wasn't her, but a prostitute in the tape.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this is really how I've read it.

I understand why people are upset that the word vixen was used.
This is however how I read this article.

" Prosecutors said they would not ask the alleged victim to testify. The defense hasn't said whether they will, though Kelly attorney Sam Adam Jr. asked jurors in opening statements why prosecutors chose not to call her.

"One answer," he said, his voice booming. "One: It's not her on that tape.""

After saying that, the defense went on to say this:
"He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. "The woman on that tape is getting paid," he said. "The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.""

Here, I am reading that they are saying that there is no alleged victim, that it is not her in the tape, but a prostitute. They are not saying the victim was a prostitute, rather that it wasn't her, but a prostitute in the tape.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this is really how I've read it.

CNN is still referring to sex-trade workers as "Hookers", so can we expect any more from them? Someone needs to be fired from their writing staff.

I hate how this is being handled by the media and general public, even though I am pro-prostitution and pro-child labor.

So you support letting children be prostitutes? Even if prostitution were legalized, for a whole host of reasons, children should not under any circumstances be allowed to prostitute themselves, not the least because it's too easy for adults to force children into prostitution.

Economies in other nations are labor intensive, as in agricultural, and the adults there simply don't make a living in offices or shops while their children are taught, fed, and looked after in government subsidized schools*. With limited natural resources, this will not change appreciably.

It's worth going a little farther and looking at why this is the case. First of all, it is not accurate to say that the former colonies in which child labour is the norm have "limited natural resources"; in fact, they are rich in natural resources, which is why they're preferred targets for exploitation in the first place. The problem is not the overall quantity of resources, but the distribution (in favour of foreign capital and domestic elites).

Similarly, it is not that the sorts of social programs taken for granted in the countries that profit from the resources of the former colonies are impossible in the latter. They're quite possible, and have been pursued with some success and massive popular support.

The reason that such popular programs are not the norm in countries completely capable of sustaining themselves generally does not lie in the array of domestic forces alone, but in the intervention of powers (in the past 50 years, primarily the US) to prevent such developments and maintain power structures designed to complement developed economies. The "structural adjustment programs" imposed on debtor states by international financial institutions also work to ensure that families will have to send their children to the factories to make even a minimal living.

What part of "child" is so hard for people to understand?

13 years old isn't even high school. 13 isn't even close to being an adult.

We've got people reacting as if it's a normal inclination, like he had no part of it or responsibility for it. "Oh, he's a lion and she just put out the meat." What the hell?

Even if I'm supposed to believe the 13yo 'consented,' we still have the issue that Kelly consented, and that's a problem.

Even in the US, even among the middle class, there are certain situations in which child labor may be considered necessary (by the employers) - in family operated businesses such as farms, restaurants, or small shops. These families may or may not pay their children a legal wage, and may or may not obey US labor laws regarding conditions and hours. The circumstances may or may not be exploitive: would it be ok if they were doing it to a stranger's child? e.g., making young adolescents or teens (my old high school classmate, his older brothers, and younger sister) as wait or bus help in a BUSY Chinese restaurant until near or past legal curfew, when they could/should have been studying for school or being with friends their own age? One former coworker and her sibling(s?) were pressed into regular duty at her father's ice cream stand at the hotel when they were children. For free. Socially unacceptable, if not family. She didn't like the memory as an adult, either. Free ice cream appears to have been the only benefit she can name.

There are some job categories which should simply be off limits to children in any society, as I have not heard of a working, non-exploitive model anywhere in the modern world, e.g., sex work, or soldiering. I was uncomfortable watching a documentary about teen boy coal miners in a certain Latin American country. The featured 13 year old boy only did it on school breaks, he says by his choice. As a matter of fact, his mother wished he would not work. Other boys were not so fortunate, and their financial contribution to their families was considered more important than any education. The coal mine was the primary employer in the rural region. Home businesses, skilled labor, or white collar employment were not viable options if people wanted money. I can see why some people may not value education beyond the 3Rs, and certainly why people might consider some money now more important than a chance at more money five or ten years down the road if they furthered their education. (I do not know what young or teen girls did in that town, if not going to school. IIRC, women were not mentioned at all other than mothers.)

And I apologize for my seemingly irreverent tone when I came on the thread.

He was acquitted on all counts.

"First of all, it is not accurate to say that the former colonies in which child labour is the norm have "limited natural resources"; in fact, they are rich in natural resources, which is why they're preferred targets for exploitation in the first place. The problem is not the overall quantity of resources, but the distribution (in favour of foreign capital and domestic elites)."

By limited natural resources, I mean the rest of the world will not be able to live like people in the industrialized world, because for example, we do not have access to the petroleum or other energy resources at this time. We do not have six spare earths, or what have you, to sustain us all at this level.

If you know some feasibly accessible energy source or other way of living which will allow people of the world to live at their desired standard of living*, I and many others (particularly those who stand to make billion$$$$ off it), would be glad to hear it.

* I wouldn't mind returning to an agrarian lifestyle and trying to make do without materialism. I'm kind of looking forward to it, if oil really does run low in the next few decades (and the economy totally goes to hell). Most others in industrialized nations (or the privileged classes in general) would likely not agree. The only reason I don't make a go for it right now (I've been looking into buying cheap rural real estate for about ten years in various countries), is I do need money to buy a house, put my kids through college (if they want to go), or to support us when and if unable to work, like in my old age. I don't want to knowingly shortchange my family.