aurora

Just now, On Pointe said:

Flack,  and those of us who post here,  are all entitled to our opinions.  But she's the one who has been given the platform of an open letter in Dance Magazine.  She's the one publicly telling other dancers that their feelings don't matter.  Would you feel the same if she had come out against Martins' accusers?

This is not the point. I was addressing the repeated claims in this thread that what she said is libelous (it isn't) and that she should not have been allowed the platform. But I'm glad you think she is entitled to her opinion.

1 minute ago, abatt said:

Comparing Sophie Flack's blathering in print to a  rape case is absurd.  If Flack has no personal knowledge or facts based on her own experiences at NYCB to add, she should never have been given a platform by Dance Magazine to prattle on about Martins and how NYCB dancers should feel.

I'm talking about the shocking use of "good old days." I made no comparison between an op-ed, which she has every right to write, and the rape case.

You just gave your opinion, she is free to give hers and dance magazine is free to give her a platform. Opinions are, after all, what one finds in an op-ed.

Just now, kfw said:

If the EEOC calls a spade a club, is it a club?

And if you call a spade a club, is it a club?

You don't get to make up you own definition of what sexual harassment is.

Just now, abatt said:

IN the good old days, before everyone was automatically presumed  guilty based on internet postings of someone with a grudge, we had laws protecting against libel and slander. 

The good old days.

And people here are objecting to the use of the word backlash?

Here is an example of what happened in the "good old days" and slander would be the appropriate term here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/new-york-city-police-solve-1994-case-that-newspaper-called-a-hoax?CMP=share_btn_fb

8 minutes ago, kfw said:

I'm sorry Balanchine sunk that low, and I'm sorry both for Farrell and Mejia, but I don't think a spurned would-be husband's taking his emotions out on the actual husband professionally falls into the same category as sexual harassment, which involves demanding sex.

This is a blatantly false statement.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

10 minutes ago, abatt said:

Exactly.  If she has no personal knowledge of any specific facts pertaining to the issue of Peter Martins' abuse, why is she writing an "open letter" in Dance Magazine?  To lecture current NYCB dancers as to how they should feel about the situation?  I have to wonder whether any attorneys for Dance Magazine vetted this "open letter" before Dance Magazine published it.

On what grounds do you think they could object to it. 

14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Is it Sophie Flack's place or responsibility to tell other people how to think and feel?  If she herself has a story to tell,  then she should tell it.  But she has no right to lecture current company members who support Martins or seek to invalidate their opinions.  She may genuinely feel that the fact she was fired from the company - as part of a "mass layoff" in her words - doesn't color her view of the situation.  (Apparently it does,  since she also states that she had to undergo therapy to get over it.)  But her statement reeks of sour grapes. 

She has just as much right to as anyone else has to state their opinion.

Why are you entitled to a view and she is not?

5 minutes ago, dirac said:

It’s kind of OT, but I can understand why Deneuve would say something like that. As a Frenchwoman she might not understand some of the niceties of the case – for example, that you can’t just let somebody flee the jurisdiction and then come back without at least going before a judge, and also that defendants with Polanski’s resources usually take care of this kind of thing quickly and quietly. There was a time when L.A. practically promised him that if he just showed up a deal could be done. Instead, Polanski let it go. Also, she made one of her best movies with Polanski, so they go back.

He drugged and raped a 13 year old and fled sentencing. Why Deneuve defended someone guilty of such acts is not really worth spending a lot of time musing over, in my opinion. The niceties are a bit beside the point.

1 minute ago, abatt said:

She most definitely claims that Martins is guilty of abuse.  Her exact words are that if you side with Martins, "you are siding with an abuser".  Yet she doesn't offer any facts to support that assertion. Nor does she clarify whether he is guilty of sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, or all of the above.  Just more vague claims which are being presented as  facts and truths.

He beat his wife. He was charged with that. Just because she didn't ultimately prosecute him doesn't mean that this event didn't happen as far as most reasonable people are concerned.

Just now, abatt said:

Yes, but if Flack  has decided that she is judge, jury and prosecutor, and  that Martins is guilty of abuse, why wouldn't she provide her own facts to back up that conclusion? 

I'm pretty sure she didn't decide that. To reach that conclusion from this article (open letter) is an immense reach.

She has made her own judgment (as we all do) of the situation based on her experience in the company and her knowledge of people involved.

9 minutes ago, dirac said:

She also doesn't say anything about any sexual harassment or other abuse she observed or heard about, which is interesting since she was with the company recently,  is no longer an "insider," and presumably has nothing to lose. She merely points to the NYT article, which was as some noted previously, rather weak tea, and the older claims against Martins.

I guess Balanchine didn't provide "a safe workplace for unfettered creation."

I don't see that it is her place or responsibility to tell other peoples' stories. Besides that explicitly wasn't the point of this piece. She is addressing the dancers, not writing to provide you with new proof of Martins' guilt. She is clearly starting from the belief (based on her many years at he company) that he is guilty.

2 minutes ago, kfw said:

That's a great big "if" though, especially since dance companies, by all accounts, are big families, where the truth will out. And isn't it at least as likely that any given choreographer or AD will admire and empathize with dancers with the courage to speak up? (I say "courage" because of the embarrassment and [false] shame often involved).

Judging by this thread? No

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Read again,  please.  I never said that Cosby "just" drugged Beverly Johnson.  I said that she never claimed to be a victim of his sexual assault.  Her story is compelling and dramatic,  but short on key details - how did she get into her apartment and into bed,  she mentions a doorman,  there must have been witnesses who can corroborate her account,  she ingested a drug  that knocked her out for two days but she didn't seek medical care?  A good defense lawyer would ask those questions.  

Almost nobody keeps records of sexual liaisons.  That's my point.  Unless someone can prove that Martins coerced or bullied dancers into sexual relationships with the promise of better roles,  that accusation will not stand up.  One of the purported victims will have to come forward.  But in doing so,  she would have to admit that she traded sex with a married man for advancement.  Even then it would "he said - she said".

I did read it. You say her only claim was that he gave her a drug that made her woozy. That is it.

So basically, you don't believe victims. Or at least you think nothing can usually be done even if a man is guilty. Your last extremely victim-blaming statement is very telling "In doing so,  she would have to admit that she traded sex with a married man for advancement."

I'm done interacting with you.

37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I was never sure of Cosby's innocence.  When I began working in theater and television in New York,  Bill Cosby was one of the guys I was warned about,  a married man known for keeping a string of girlfriends on the side - though he was hardly considered the worst,  and nobody ever called him a rapist.  My point is that it's easy to jump on the bandwagon with accusations years after the fact.  (Especially when Gloria Allred has proposed  that Cosby set aside $100,000,000 as compensation to his "victims",  who are nearly all her clients.   Her cut would be $40,000,000.) 

Some of the women,  who were photographed for New York Magazine,  have offered no proof that they ever even met Cosby.  Others put forth dates for alleged assaults when Cosby wasn't in the country.  Some,  like Beverly Johnson,  made no claim that Cosby ever assaulted them,  but that he offered them drinks that made them feel woozy.  One Cosby accuser  also insinuated herself into the Marv Albert sex assault case,  much to the annoyance of the actual victim.  One woman has apparently mistaken Cosby for Nipsey  Russell,  another black comic popular in the 1980s.  Not one of the women who claimed to have been drugged went to a doctor or hospital.

None of that means that Cosby is innocent.  It does mean that given an incentive,  like the prospect of collecting millions of dollars,  some people will exaggerate or lie.  Although the media has given them a free pass,  if they were actually put on the stand,  their inconsistencies and lack of solid proof would make it very hard to get a conviction.  The best shot was Andrea Constand,  and that trial ended in a hung jury.  (Considering that Constand had settled the case civilly,  continued to call Cosby,  and accepted $200,000 under a non-disclosure agreement,  the case probably should have never been brought to court.)

There has to be real proof of Peter Martins' wrongdoing,  like detailed records of  sexual liaisons,  photographs,  testimony from witnesses.  Anonymous letters and decades-old claims with no police reports or medical evidence are not good enough.  A lot of the negative comments about him seem driven by personal career disappointment and dislike of Martins' choreography more than actual bad acts.

BTW,  what does a story about Ben Vereen have to do with Cosby's guilt or innocence?

This is Beverly Johnson's account, You are right he didn't sexually assault her. But your dismissal of it as "oh he just drugged her"  is not in keeping with what she claimed.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-story

Also while I hate to cite wiki, it is useful here in providing a full account of the women, the accusations and when they came forward (many came forward a long time ago, but their accounts went unpublished / police took little action):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations

You seem to not realize most women who are raped do not go to the police because of how victims are treated.

Who keeps detailed records of sexual liaisons? There usually are no witnesses....I realize you are speaking of Martins here but I don't see how a level of proof that would convince you of anything is even possible...

5 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The Bill Cosby situation is somewhat parallel,  although he is vastly better-known,  and more disliked,  than Martins.  The media went into overdrive,  presenting forty plus supposed victims of Cosby,  on the cover of New York Magazine,  and on a special report on CNN.  But many of the women had stories that don't stand up under even minimal scrutiny.  Some of them were more accurately described as "kept women",  and others were simply lying,  claiming Cosby assaulted them on dates when he could prove he was out of the country.  At least one had been a longtime mental patient with a history dramatic fabrications.  The one woman who managed to bring Cosby into court couldn't persuade a jury that he was guilty,  largely because she continued to phone him and ask for tickets to his performances,  and the case ended in a mistrial.

In the Cosby case,  all of the accusers put themselves out there by name and provided dates  (even when their "facts" were demonstrably false).  In Martins case,  except for Wilhelmina Frankfurt,  who is exasperatingly  vague,  no other female has claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Martins.  Kelly Cass Boal's story of being physically brutalized must be considered,  but her reaction to being deposed is an indication that a competent defense attorney could shred her on the stand.  At any rate,  the statute of limitations has long run out on the alleged assault.

None of this means that Martins is innocent.  He could be guilty as hell,  on all counts.  But responsible journalists don't treat accusations as established fact.  If Martins were ever formally charged,  the reporting of Pogrebin and others could be considered prejudicial and cause problems for any criminal prosecution and/or civil case.  Unfortunately this situation has turned into yet another opportunity to attack ballet in general,  which may have been the aim.

This is a highly bizarre account of the accusers and trial of Cosby.

You omit for example he is being retried shortly.

I'm not sure this comparison does Martins any favors...

4 minutes ago, Stage Right said:

Apparently you completely misread what I said. I did NOT say that her marrying him excused any of the abusive behavior! Or that it wasn't there. What I did imply is that it was her choice. We cannot, and should not, legislate people's choices once above the age of consent. It would have perhaps been difficult, but certainly not impossible for Darci to leave. She had a very high-profile place in a very high-profile company, many contacts, and could surely have made a good career/life for herself IF she really wanted to. Most likely she stayed for a complex set of reasons that we cannot know, but that likely include those abusive childhoods. I hope that Darci and Peter both seek out the help they need, and I'm not talking legal help.

Your wording implied it. If I misunderstood you (I did not misread), my sincere apologies.

18 minutes ago, Stage Right said:

As for Darci, dear reader, she married him! And has stayed with him. 

 

And he beat her and apparently humiliated her by cheating on her with other members of the company (*as per statements in the articles re: the charges against him).

Lots of people stay in abusive relationships, especially perhaps if, as is the case here, they grew up with an abusive relationship as an example.

It doesn't negate the fact that they are abusive. 

Here he was not only her spouse, he was her boss. It would be unusually difficult to leave even had she wanted to.

Just now, On Pointe said:

Sorry,  I'm not going to accept that "sexism" charge.  The mothers,  and fathers,   knew what was going on and they didn't stop it when they could have.  No way am I "exonerating" Martins,  but the parents' inaction was reprehensible and inexplicable.

I'm only going by your posts, and you singled it out as the mothers' responsibility. You can accept it or not.  And you have done nothing but exonerate Martins.

5 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Harvey Weinstein's sexual assaults were not public knowledge until recently.  Everybody knew about Martins and Watts and Kistler,  including the board members at NYCB.  And I disagree with you about a mother's responsibility.  Parents should protect their underage daughters.  They could have demanded an end to the cohabitation and bundled the girls back to the dormitory where they belonged.   They could have brought charges against Martins or "persuaded" him to leave their daughters alone by more forceful traditional means.  They could have blasted him in the press.  But they didn't.

You are exonerating him of responsibility while blaming their parents (particularly their MOTHERS). The sexism of your statements is astonishing.

8 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Yes,  and wasn't it Balanchine who noted that all teenage girl ballet dancers have mothers?  Surely Kistler and Watts' mothers  were well aware of their relationships with Martins,  since we all knew about them.  We may all agree that it was wrong for him to be involved with such young girls,  but none of us can care more than their own parents did.  I don't remember any great outcry against Martins or demands that he be fired from his position as a principal dancer.  It's a bit late to be litigating the issue now.  It didn't disqualify Martins from being named co-ballet master decades ago.  You can't hang him for it now.  (I confess I found it ironically delicious that Watts took up with the much younger Damian Woetzel,  and that coupling didn't appear to hurt his career at NYCB.  If it did I'm sure we'll hear about it now.)

He was an adult when they started dating. If you can't tell the difference that is on you. I have no problem with age differences in couples if both parties are ADULT when they start dating.

I'm sure all the women who are accusing Weinstein, etc. will appreciate your belief that it is too late to start litigating the issue now.

PS: it isn't their mothers' responsibility to control Martins, it is his misbehavior and HIS responsibility

9 minutes ago, Drew said:

I think ballet has to take these issues seriously and change some if its mores but comparing Martins to Roy Moore seems uncalled for. Martins was not a judge and did not make any part of his reputation on defending the Bible or attacking the morals of others or their sexual behaviors (as Moore did). And his relation with Watts came when he was in his young twenties and they lived together for some time. The violance troubles me more than Watts’s age. (Artists don’t get a pass on illegal behavior, but in fact I do think judges should be held to higher legal standards.) 

34 dating a 16 year old. That he didn't proclaim himself a moral authority or claim biblical authority for his acts doesn't change that.

If your only problem with Moore was his hypocrisy I really don't know what to say.

2 minutes ago, Stage Right said:

I agree with On Pointe. We don't know that "dating" meant a sexual relationship at that time. And people can mean many different things when they say "dating", from regularly turning up at group social events together, to going out alone together, to sexual relationships.....how do we even know what's being referred to? And I agree that it is most likely the substance abuse that is at the core of all this. I hope Martins is able to address that issue; it is huge. I also wonder about any attempt to "purify" the art world--dance and otherwise-- from every behavior we find problematic. Might we end up with rather boring, but "nice" art?  Artists in all art forms have been notorious throughout history for their rather wild and non-conformist behavior.  It is part of the appeal for most people, I think, when reading biographies of famous artists. Many were very troubled people--should we reject their art because of that? As are many non-artists. Let's face it, we all learn and grow though the process of living; all of us have done some things that at the very least we are not proud of, or think back on with regret. Although I certainly don't condone sexual or physical abuse, I still find myself deeply uneasy about trying to legislate every action between men and women, or between those of the same gender, to conform to a certain set of norms that we currently feel are correct. I expect a lot of criticism coming my way in this thread now, but this is how I feel.

There are actually laws preventing adults from dating 16 year olds so we don't need to worry about legislating. If you had a 16yo daughter you would be fine with her dating a 34 year old man?

And this wasn't the 20s or the 50s. This was not a sexually repressed time. He lived (also when he was an adult) with his 16yo gf Heather Watts. Are people going to argue that wasn't a sexual relationship? I mean I suppose that is possible, but it seems highly unlikely.

You don't have to be a creep to be a good artist. But that isn't really what this is about. The issue of "can one enjoy great art made by horrible people?" applies to people like Wagner and Kevin Spacey. This case isn't about rejecting Martins' art (his dancing days are over, and his choreography is lousy), it is that he shouldn't be in a position where he is able to continue such behavior.

Nor do you have to be an artist to be a creep, for that matter. Did you think the behavior described by Roy Moore, which was denounced almost across the board was acceptable? This is virtually the same thing, yet because he is an "artist" people here seem to want to give him a pass.

3 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Perhaps I'm misremembering,  if that's a word,  but wasn't it Balanchine himself who pushed the Martins-Kistler relationship?  Not that that would absolve Martins of responsibility,  but I don't think we should use terms like statutory rape when we don't know if there was any sexual activity.  Back in those days,  when I was growing up too,  "dating" was not synonymous with having sex.  

 

Honestly, sex or no sex, I find it absolutely horrifying that so many here think a 34 year old man dating a girl less than half his age is reasonable or acceptable.

34 minutes ago, vipa said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are living in a climate in which every statement is being given the most extreme interpretation possible. The LA Times saying they were publicly dating does not for me, immediately translate to predatory behavior.  I was in a ballet company when I was 17 (not world class like NYCB or ABT) and if I went to the ballet and out to eat with a fellow company member who was much older, I didn't look at it a predatory - I still don't.  I'm not saying that's true of everyone in every case, just that I don't want to make an assumption in one direction or another.

 I feel we have be careful how we categorize things and maintain some sense of proportion. 

As a separate but related note.  NYCB sometimes has company members as young as 15. These young people have co-workers that are older. They form friendships & date.  Should the company not be able to hire dancers under 18?

 

No one would reasonably describe a group of colleagues going out to eat as dating. Dating is an activity undertaken (normally) by 2 people. In this case a person who was 16 and one who was 34. This is precisely the pedophilia activity that there was just outrage against by anyone with any morals in Alabama. I think condemning that is quite proportional.

What is not reasonable is extrapolating from this that anyone is suggesting no dancers under 18. What is to be expected is that men over 2x their age will not date them, since it is illegal.

6 hours ago, minervaave said:

I just came across this quote in an LA Times article.  

"Martins had gone out with Kistler for some months when she was only 16, then the youngest dancer ever made a member of the company."

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-06/magazine/tm-3085_1_city-ballet/7

Can anyone imagine a school principal who had dated a 16 year old, been arrested once for physically assaulting his wife and twice for a DUI being allowed to continue to serve as a leader of children?  And Martins was leader not just of NYCB, but also SAB.  

If creating a great dance company means tolerating such behavior, then I, for one, think the price is too high.

So she was 16, and he was 34. More than 2x her age...

I have no issue with large age differences when both parties are adults, but there is a word for a 30+ year old dating a 16yo and it isn't a nice one.