nanushka

I don't follow the logic here. Families are entities in which, inevitably (or even just probably), "the truth will out"? Not the family I grew up in, nor many other families I know. I don't follow the logic here, either. Since when is a strong sense of justice, and the willingness to take significant personal risks for the sake of justice, a notable "asset" for a dancer in a ballet company? Since when do the AD's of ballet companies (or the management in many other types of organizations) place the furtherance of justice as among their primary hiring considerations? Much of this seems like magical thinking to me, based on ideals rather than reality. And it seems disconnected from how the victims of such crimes would actually be thinking and feeling about themselves, their own vulnerabilities (emotional, professional, financial, social, etc.), their relationships with others (many of which would be strongly impacted), their aggressors, the organizations they work within and in which those aggressors have substantial power, etc. It seems like what's being suggested here is that, if Peter Martins were guilty of sexual misconduct, his victims would probably have spoken out — because why wouldn't they in today's climate? I'm not suggesting that they definitely would not have spoken out. I'm merely suggesting that there are some very good reasons why they might not have. And so from the lack of publicly identified accusers, I think we can conclude nothing about Martins' likely innocence or guilt.

Would you risk your career on 50-50 odds? Maybe you would. I might, too (though probably not). But I can certainly understand why many people wouldn't. Especially dancers, who often don't have much training or experience doing anything else, and who are often young and financially vulnerable. I don't buy the idea that, in the current #metoo climate, the majority of victims really feel liberated to "speak their truth." For one thing, the current climate is all of....four months old? After millennia spent living in a very different climate. Who knows where this goes? Who knows whether this is a real social shift or just a passing trend? Would I be willing to stake my future on the chance that, in the fall of 2017, human social culture suddenly and substantially changed? I don't believe that a majority of victims look at Oprah onstage and a room full of Hollywood elite and think, "Oh, ok, they've got my back. Of course I'm going to tell my story now." If it really takes "courage," then I can certainly understand why many victims would remain silent rather than putting their futures on the line.

Who here has advocated judging Martins' career solely (or even primarily) on his alleged misconduct? This seems like a straw man argument to me.

Why do Martins' accomplishments — considerable as they may be — constitute "context" for any acts of sexual misconduct that he may be guilty of? The implication here seems to be that those accomplishments should be viewed as mitigating factors in any judgment of him — or that any judgment of him has to be made with constant reference back to the accomplishments. Should the misconduct of a man with many accomplishments be viewed differently from that of a man with fewer? Why can't one instead consider these two things separately — the misconduct and the accomplishments? In discussing the former, why should one have to keep acknowledging the latter? Aren't Martins' accomplishments in fact a separate issue? In judging his alleged misconduct, is one really judging "his entire body of work"? Personally, I can't recall having heard or read any suggestion that Martins' accomplishments are rendered null by any alleged acts of sexual misconduct he may have committed.

I'm not sure I understand this point. If someone wants to simply give their money to an arts institution, then yes, the institution (and maybe all of us) should be grateful. But taking a seat on a board is taking on a responsibility. Is it too much to suggest that that responsibility would include making sure that "those channels are set up within the institution itself," that they remain in good working order, and that when problems arise they are dealt with in a responsible manner? I don't know a whole lot about how boards work in arts institutions, but I rather assumed that fell within their purview.

Yes, if it's understandable that the dancers who benefited from the alleged behavior did not speak out, then it must also be understandable that the only ones who did speak out are dancers who did not benefit. No?

True, but irrelevant, as far as I can tell. Just because an underage girl's parents didn't intervene, just because her godlike boss gave the nod, just because that boss's board of trustees didn't step in — none of that in the least exonerates the other adult in the relationship of the responsibility for his own autonomous actions. What do those actions mean for how we should think about Martins going forward? That seems worth considering. But what I don't understand is why his professional and artistic accomplishments, or the idiosyncrasies of the organizational structure in which he achieved those accomplishments, or the neglect of other adults within and around that structure, should be considered mitigating factors in how we view his actions. Just adding, in light of vipa's comment below: I'm also not suggesting that we should condemn him based on a single line in a single news article. Just that others' actions or approval seem to me to be pretty irrelevant when it comes to judging whatever Martins' own actions may have been.

Exactly. I haven't seen anyone advocating purifying the art world. This is about preventing someone who abuses power from being in a position of institutional power. It's quite simple, actually.

I don't disagree with the general sentiment here, but it should be noted (as I have on another related thread) that pedophilia is typically defined (including in the DSM) as sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not simply sex with a minor. There is a big difference, in terms of the psychological ramifications, between the former and the latter — which is not, of course, to suggest that either is acceptable or that both should not be condemned. Pedophilia is considered a psychological disorder, whereas sexual activity with post-pubescent minor is, in general, more of an issue of law and morality. (That's not, of course, to suggest that a propensity toward sex with minors might not itself be an indicator of some underlying psychological disorder — just that such a propensity is not, in itself, a primary indicator. I'm speaking generally here, not about Peter Martins in particular.) The term pedophilia is at times colloquially used in a broader sense, but I think that keeping in mind its stricter definition is a good idea, since the two types of behavior have such different implications.

I'm curious, where are you seeing post-resignation communications? His last Instagram post was Dec. 15.

Royal and Teuscher Swan Lake please!

I don't think she ever even posted about the Nutcracker engagement on IG or other social media (not that she's particularly active there in general). So we'll really have to keep our eyes and ears open!

Did anyone make it out to Port Washington to see any of Veronika's performances in Nutcracker this week? I'd love to hear any reports!

Very true. With their current male principal lineup, Gomes' departure will have severe consequences for the company, ones that we haven't even begun to address here, and it's highly unlikely they would have acted lightly. At this point, the male principal roster consists of the following: Roberto Bolle (ha!) Jeffrey Cirio (has danced few full-length leading roles with ABT and is only able to partner certain dancers due to height) Herman Cornejo (is only able to partner certain dancers due to height) David Hallberg (as beloved as Marcelo but with many open questions — e.g. will he still dance with the Bolshoi or other companies? will he still try to have the sort of globetrotting career that he had before his major injuries? will he become injured again? what are his current capacities as a full-time dancer?) Alban Lendorf (my own personal jury is out on him still) Daniil Simkin (now has a substantial commitment to another company and is only able to partner certain dancers due to height) Cory Stearns (among the more versatile on the roster, but with limited artistic depth, in my opinion) James Whiteside (ditto)

Depending on the nature of the alleged offense, there is a lot of space for other possibilities between direct testimony from a victim on the one hand and mere rumor on the other. And some of those possibilities could certainly be reasonable (i.e. non-shameful) grounds for an investigation.

Posted by the co-authors of The Art of Movement on IG, with Marcelo at the center and wishes of “love and support to our friends”: Subtle yet pointed.

Anyone else who knew of it at the time or learned of it since, presumably, and perhaps was motivated by recent public disclosures to tip off the company. I'm not suggesting that one explanation is more likely than another, just again pointing out that we know next to nothing about what allegedly occurred, how it came to light, why the company responded as it did, why Marcelo resigned, etc. I think it's very important to keep that lack of knowledge in mind when judging or speculating about what we do know. No matter how the company learned of the occurrence, though, your point about how the alleged victim must feel now is definitely worth keeping in mind.

We also have no idea whether the alleged victim did indeed speak out. All the press release says is "ABT was made aware of a highly concerning allegation." We don't know how they were made aware.

Yes, and Kathleen's post above (around the middle of page 3 of this thread) would speak directly to a case such as this, or a number of possible others. Dancers have multi-faceted professional lives beyond the confines of their home companies. If a dancer is alleged to have committed a serious offense in one of those outside professional contexts, even if no one else from their home company was involved, that home company would be well advised to investigate. Note that I'm not supporting here ABT's press release and its inclusion of vague details about the case, only their decision to open an investigation and potentially act on the matter. What I keep coming back to in my mind, over and over, is that (in my opinion) we just don't know enough about what is alleged to have happened to adequately judge much (if any) of this—the likelihood of guilt, the appropriateness of forgiveness and rehabilitation, the cause of the resignation, the appropriateness of the investigation, even perhaps the appropriateness of the press release. That's what makes this whole situation so difficult and frustrating and uncomfortable. We just don't know.

And in many of the situations we've been discussing, physical force would not likely be the primary or best response, and we don't know any details of what Marcelo is alleged to have done, so there's no particular reason to think that physical force would likely have been the primary or best response to it.

Whether or not that's thinkable, many of the situations we have been discussing have involved no physical force, and we don't know any details of what Marcelo is alleged to have done, so there's no particular reason to think that it involved physical force.

There’s also nothing in Gillian’s post that explicitly expresses sympathy or support for Marcelo. It’s vague enough to be potentially read as saying “hang in there” to the company in general. Now, I do think it’s likely Gillian did intend to subtly imply more. But it’s not as if she’s taken a stand and spoken out. And that’s likely why those who run abtofficial felt they could like it.

There's aggressive sexual pursuit that is welcome, and there's aggressive sexual pursuit that is unwelcome. It's generally pretty easy to tell the difference. The former can be lots of fun; the latter, not so much. And the latter, in the gay "dating" scene of 2017 or any other year, has rightly been labelled with terms much less mild than "sexual misconduct." My point, though, was about your claim: I am not aware of any cases recently in the news that involve a one-time sexual advance not met with reciprocation (assuming it's not in direct breach of official workplace policy) being labelled and punished as "sexual misconduct."

If you're talking legally, this is flatly untrue. If you're not talking legally, I wonder if you could point to some cases, of the many that have recently been in the news, in which a single "sexual advance" (by which I assume you mean one that's delivered in anything like a reasonable manner — even men are not beasts, after all) has been "met with a negative response" and has subsequently been labelled "sexual misconduct"? Edited to add: On second reading, I see now that you are not in fact really talking about "every situation where a sexual advance is met with a negative response." Rather, you're talking about when someone has "an aggressive[ly] pursuing male on his/her behind." Any man (or woman) who finds that getting sex or a date is impossible without aggressively pursuing someone's behind needs to take a deep, hard look at himself, his attributes, his behaviors, and his preferred objects of desire, and consider whether there might be something wrong there.

Such a classic Marcelo moment too. Always the perfect cavalier.