Latest "Elmo" accuser posts on "Casual Encounters" regularly for "a Lil Male Stimulation."


44 Responses to “Latest "Elmo" accuser posts on "Casual Encounters" regularly for "a Lil Male Stimulation."”

  1. Joe Matise says:

    To be fair – and I don’t have any horse in this race nor do I have any idea if he’s telling the truth or not – one of the potential negative effects of being sexually abused as a minor is to become dependent on sex, so this wouldn’t necessarily be a surprise as a result of the allegations nor in any way absolve Mr. Clash of any wrongdoing.

    • semiotix says:

      I completely agree. For the record, I also don’t have any opinion about (or specific knowledge of) the Elmo Guy’s guilt or innocence. I really don’t. 

      What I do have an informed opinion about are guys who have used CL or very similar things to hook up with other guys, having done it myself a few times in younger and less cautious days. My motivation for doing so was, well, I was horny and kind of into hooking up with guys. Fortunately for me, the same was true of my partners. Others are motivated by a desire to rob, scam, or beat up a victim who’s unlikely to want to go to the police. And some are kids or young adults who are prostituting themselves. The last group is pretty obviously desperate, usually pretty palpably messed up just in how they frame the ads, and you don’t have to be Sigmund Freud reborn to get a pretty clear sense that a lot of them are doing this because they’re in crisis that goes way beyond their need for a few bucks. 

      So no, it doesn’t come as a shock at all, whether he’s telling the truth or not. It’s more surprising when people are accused of sexually abusing someone who managed to get help, get healthy, and put their lives back together–because those are the people who understand that a monetary settlement is probably not going to enhance their serenity very much. 

      I guess it’s fair game to report on the fact that he’s done this, but presumably BB wants to avoid the implication that sluts who cry rape shouldn’t be taken seriously if they’re out there slutting it up on CL.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      Please note that Mr Clash hasn’t been proven to have done anything wrong.  Have some consideration for him too.  Anyone could toss an accusation like that at you too if all it takes is your word vs theirs.

  2. AlasdairGF says:

    I know *nothing* of this – but it instantly reminded me that victims of child sexual abuse are likely to have maladaptive sexual behaviours… perhaps Craigslist activity could be evidence *for* the accusation?!

  3. Xeni Jardin says:

    This post does not presume guilt or innocence in the cases involving alleged underage sex, or make judgement on the sexual practices of consenting adults.

    • clarkie604 says:

      Xeni, You will always be the queen of the internet to me because through you I discovered Breaking Bad, but I think you need to reread your post.  You don’t explicitly say Clash is innocent, but the implication is that Clash’s accusers are money-hungry sex workers.

      • I also took from Xeni’s post the implication that the accuser was a CL prostitute. But if you go read the article, you will see that it explicitly says that his posts did NOT mention any kind of compensation, even euphemistic compensation such as “roses”.

    • Scixual says:

       The fact of posting the story implies those assumptions. Otherwise, what’s the point of the story? Might as well post that they are right-handed, or like bluegrass.

    • waetherman says:

      But what you are doing is taking the subsequent sexual behavior of an alleged abuse victim and throwing it in with language like “trolls” and then making an allusion to charging for sex even though that is unsupported in the original article. The implication is pretty clear and pretty shameful.

      • Lobster says:

         I think that Xeni may have meant “troll” as an alternate (and acceptable) spelling for “trawl,” which is the act of fishing by dragging a wide net.  You could argue that picking one spelling over the other is an attempt to color our perception of the article but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in those sorts of situations, and it’s a good metaphor.

    • John W says:

      Wow, Xeni I’m a huge fan but you don’t get it on this one.  This accuser’s personal life (which inasmuch as this craigslist post represents it, isn’t actually scandalous at all, unless you consider gay craigslist hookups scandalous — and I don’t) has *nothing* to do with the accusations (which I hope are false).  The implication of this post — that the accuser’s craigslist activity somehow impeaches his credibility in terms of an abuse accusation —  absolutely makes a judgmental statement regarding “sexual practices of consenting adults”.  As a queer person, you should know this.

  4. clarkie604 says:

    I think America is having a hard time deciding who to believe here — I know I am.  On the one hand we have Kevin Clash who has been sort of a modern American hero.  We all watched Being Elmo with our kids and it was pretty inspiring.  But for this hero status, I think America would have turned against him pretty quick regardless of who was accusing him.

    On the other hand we have three accusers who are now adults, and it appears that rather than seeking criminal charges they just want money from Clash.  I think we all hope that there is no basis to their allegations, because we want to believe Clash is a good guy.

    But really it looks like it’s Clash’s word against the accusers.  And based on that, none of us can judge either way.  Certainly, it is irrelevant whether an accuser is on Craigslist now looking for anonymous sex.  I don’t think promiscuity says anything about honesty.  Further, sexual abuse as a minor could lead to promiscuity as an adult. 

    It could be that the character traits we look at in the accusers to question their veracity were actually caused by abuse by Clash.  On the other hand, it may be that Kevin Clash is being wrongly accused.

    It’s hard to say, but we certainly shouldn’t disparage the accusers unless their claims are proved to be unfounded.

    • I think America is having a hard time deciding who to believe here

      I’m not. Because this whole thing has nothing to do with me and is none of my business at all. So I don’t have any inclination to decide “who to believe,” and in fact, find the fascination with the whole thing prurient, invasive, and inappropriate.

      • clarkie604 says:

        Really?  We should put our heads in the ground and not care?  No.  We need to be aware and we need to make sure that people who abuse kids are punished — even if they are rich and famous.

        No man is an island,
        Entire of itself.

        • ChicagoD says:

          “Kids” is a loaded term. I have not paid enough attention to this story to know. How old do the accusers say they were when Clash had sex with them? If Clash broke the law, then he broke the law, but “kids” implies something different than “underage,” particularly for the Elmo guy.

        • xzzy says:

          That’s what the justice system is for, isn’t it?

          Let them handle it. And if they fail, attack the justice system. 

        • Culturedropout says:

          Aware?  Yes.  Punished?  Probably, although having to live with and try to conceal and control a sexual attraction that seems to bring out the vigilante in others could be thought of as “punishment” enough.  Now, by “we”, do you mean the legal system and proper authorities, or do you mean, “we” as in “those who would string someone up based on rumors, just in case”?  Because I’m pretty sure the former have the situation under control, and the latter really need to just relax and let things be handled _legally_.

        • semiotix says:

          We need to be aware and we need to make sure that people who abuse kids are punished — even if they are rich and famous.

          I agree 100%. But “we” means “we the people,” and “aware” means awareness that crimes like sexual abuse of minors exist and have terrible consequences. It does not require every citizen to play amateur juror based on stuff we’re reading on Gawker. Thousands of rapes, murders and other horrible crimes are prosecuted every year without my knowledge or consent. A few of them even have high media profiles, and involved rich or famous or powerful people. But it’s okay that I didn’t pore over the transcripts or tune into Nancy Grace. It really is!

          You talk about putting one’s head in the sand. I completely agree I’d be an ostrich if I heard about the accusations and said “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT ELMO LA LA LA.” Or, for that matter, if I said, “of course he did it. A grown man who hangs around with little kids all day, you gotta figure he’s a perv.” 

          But yeah, not only is it okay not to pay attention to specific cases, it’s probably better for everyone concerned.

        • Yes. YOU should not care if Kevin Clash had sex with someone. Do you know Kevin Clash? Do you know one of the alleged victims? Does this have anything at all to do with you? Right now, at this very moment, a child is being sexually abused, and you don’t care, because it has nothing at all to do with you and you have no knowledge about it. The fact that this case involves a celebrity is the only difference, and that is why I say that the fascination is prurient, invasive, and inappropriate.

          Who should care about this case? Kevin Clash and his friends, family, and loved ones. The alleged victims and their friends, family, and loved ones. The police and the justice system. That is all. I realize that there is a perspective from which one might ask, “Hey? Why did the guy who used to play Elmo step down? I liked him.” And you’d be entitled to an answer. But the idea that it is appropriate or necessary for you or me–totally, totally uninvolved parties–to be deciding which side we should believe? Obscene.

    • Lobster says:

       We know for a fact that Clash has made videos of himself with his entire arm shoved up Elmo’s ass and then showed those videos to young children, so I think we ought to take that into consideration too.

  5. otterhead says:

    Ah yes, the young gentleman who was apparently just dandy with the alleged encounters he’d had with Mr. Clash nine years ago, until he suddenly realized a few weeks ago that he’d been “damaged”… after reading that someone else was suing Mr Clash.

    • cinerik says:

      Yes, and damn all the victims of Jimmy Saville in the UK who didn’t feel that they could come forward until now.  Shame on them – they’re obviously in it for some sort of financial reward.  Terrible, terrible people…

      • gobo says:

        Comparing Jimmy Savile and Kevin Clash is nonsense and has no bearing on my comment whatsoever.

        • cinerik says:

          Well, I’m not – I’m replying to Otterhead, but my point is that to claim that an accuser who does not make a public statement until some other accuser does so is somehow less worthy than one who speaks out at the time is fallacious.  The idea that they won’t be believed due to the fame of the accused can, for instance, be a big issue.  The comparison is not between the actions (alleged or otherwise) of the two men, but Otterhead’s reaction to the timing of the victim’s announcements.

  6. ChicagoD says:

    Well, that explains all the bad reactions to the roses I brought. Thanks for the tip!

  7. Scixual says:

    Oh, this feels uncomfortably like shaming the accuser … something we’ve seen before, and cried out against, right?

    It’s easy to do when it’s your hero being accused.

  8. Xeni, I would be interested to hear from you what the connection between the items in the story is, that makes them news-worthy. “Another person accuses Kevin Clash,” is certainly news-worthy. Does the accuser use CL as a means of finding sexual gratification? Is the accuser a professional sex-worker? The only ways I can think of in which those things might be relevant to the story are for the purpose of titillation or shaming.

  9. hymenopterid says:

    I just want to point out that Clash lost his job without being convicted of anything.  So yeah, there is plenty of shaming going on here.  I’d like to think that there is some space between honoring the accuser, and trying the accused in the media.

  10. orangedesperado says:

    Most sex workers (if he is advertising sex for “roses” — in Canada on CL roses = $ 50.00 bills, because they are printed with red ink) are not extortionists. Sex work is work, and all workers want to get paid. His ad is upfront about this. (*Edit* I misunderstood.I thought he was advertising as a sex worker but realize he was not*).

    If you spoke with 1000 sex workers (male and female) you would get 1000 reasons why they do this job, as well as a spectrum of life histories that include people who were severely traumatized from the time they were little kids and are not in a psychologically healthy state to others who became involved in sex work as informed and emotionally healthy adults, with no history of trauma or coercion. Ditto for levels of drug and alcohol use/abuse, etc.

    Kevin Clash may have been active on places like gay chat lines, Craigslist, whatever, looking to hook up. So what ?

    Two of his accusers state that they met him through these sorts of places, at least one who was using the service in violation of its terms (ie he was underage).

    Two of his accusers seem to be acting like extortionists (I haven’t heard about the third). There is a big difference between an adult that initiates sex with an underage person, where there is an aspect of trust or authority that is being abused(like a teacher, coach, pastor,employer, etc.)where the underage person is manipulated into a sexual relationship, or submits to sex under fear/is assaulted. What does it mean if an underage person(and the age of gay consent varies) is active and advertising on chatlines/CL/Grindr whatever ? It seems to imply that they are looking for attention and/or sex. If they posted their real age in their ad, they would have been booted off/banned. 

    As an older person, it gets harder to pinpoint how old a person is. Could I tell who was a mature 15 year old from an immature 18 year old ? I don’t think I could anymore.

    Do I think that Kevin Clash used bad judgement in his choice of sexual partners ? Yes. Do I know anything about the rest of Kevin Clash’s sexual history — ie usual age range of partners, types, how he treated these people ? No.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      It can be extremely hard to judge age unless the difference is pretty large.  I was in an exercise class and was talking about the new students to the instructor and mentioned there was a new 18 yr old girl in the class.  She said she was 13 and my jaw almost dropped.

  11. ChicagoD says:

    Shaming the accuser and shaming a plaintiff are a little different. The highest standards of proof in the court system attach to criminal allegations (i.e. the claims made by victims). People who do not make allegations that would be subject to that standard of proof, but do make a preponderance of the evidence claim (i.e are plaintiffs) are not really in the same position as criminal complainants and shouldn’t necessarily be treated the same way.

  12. clarkie604 says:

    What is going on in a courthouse shouldn’t have anything to do with how we treat alleged victims.

  13. ChicagoD says:

    I don’t agree with that at all. An accuser in a civil case is making an entirely different kind of accusation and knows that they will not be held to the same level of proof. Anytime a crime is alleged to have occurred and the victim seeks only a civil remedy everyone ought to be EXTREMELY suspicious of their motives.

    In other words, the allegation is of a different type and doesn’t deserve to be treated the same way.

  14. clarkie604 says:

    I see your point.  But there are a lot of reasons that an honest accuser might pursue a civil action without a criminal action.

    –the police/prosecutors decide whether to pursue criminal charges, not alleged victims
    –there may not be enough evidence to meet the higher burden of proof for criminal charges, but that doesn’t mean the crime didn’t happen (see OJ Simpson)
    –it might be too late to file criminal charges

    Bringing a civil complaint without criminal charges may tip the scales a small amount against the accuser in court, but it doesn’t make it OK to shame an alleged victim.

  15. I’ll add one more: dislike of or distrust of the police.

  16. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    When you pull a number like 5 million out of the air all sorts of warning bells go off though.

Leave a Reply