Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    > -Why does the media now only call him by his real name.

    What infuriates me is that the media did NOT "only call him by his real
    name" -- the TV news (6:00pm) I watched went out of its way to identify
    him by his stage name, creating the problem of:
    
    > -What do you tell you kids.
    
    I told my daughter, who's 6 1/2, that he was in a movie theater that's
    for grownups-only and they think that he (here I threw up my hands with 
    an expression of complete puzzlement) pulled down his pants.  We agreed
    that if he did do that, it was VERY bad manners.
    
    And I really think that if he did what he's charged with, it was only
    a case of very bad manners.  Who's the victim?  It was in an
    adults-only setting.  I liked his show, and what I've seen of his
    movies I liked (or didn't actively dislike).  I'm not burning anything! 
    I'm sorry his career is going to take such a hit because of a
    relatively minor lapse in judgement.
    
    Leslie

What kind of news would it have been if they had just reported on a
"Paul Ruebens"?  I saw an article in the Boston Globe a few days ago,
on the topic of "what do you tell your kids".  The general view was; don't
say anything unless they ask.  What they suggested you said varied by
the age group.  What you said in .1 sounded right to me.

Though I am no fan of the Pee Wee Herman character, I find myself wondering
just how low a crime rate that town had that the cops could spend their
time busting patrons of a movie theatre for doing something that harmed
no one else.

				Steve

    USA Today had a psychologist who recommended to tell the kids that
    "He made a mistake.  Everyone makes mistakes even grownups and PeeWee
    made a big mistake."
    
    Actually he FU'd Big Time,...
    
    ed

    re: "Actually he FU'd Big Time,..."
    
    Well, there's a neat way to break it to the kids ;') ;')
                                                  
    Seriously, though: Paul Reuben's (alleged) actions are in question, here. 
    Not the actions of his character "Pee Wee Herman". It would be the same as 
    if Clayton Moore had been arrested thirty years ago for the same 
    allegations. No one would have cared until it had been revealed that he
    was...
    
    
    
    The Lone Ranger!!!
    
    
    If it had been any other actor who is popular among children, the 
    effect of such actions would be just as severe, I think. Mr. Rogers,
    Captain Kangaroo, Major Mudd (remember him?)...any of them who directly 
    interacts with children via the tube has to be extremely cautious of how 
    they should be perceived in the public's (children's) eyes, and that *is*
    a tremendously heavy responsibility for any actor to have to carry...
    Clayton Moore understood this...Paul Reuben (supposedly) did not.
    
    I remember, by the way, an old blooper from radio where the host of a
    kids show thought he was off the air, and thus proceded to say something 
    to the effect:
    
    "There...that ought to keep the little bastards quiet..."
     
    Another case of an individual who couldn't handle the weight of the
    responsibility...even though it meant a steady paycheck at the time.

	So, have you heard the Pee Wee herman jokes making the
	rounds ?

	Steve H

Re: .5

Too many, and let's not have any here.


I heard on the radio (WBCN) this morning that when Reubens was arrested,
he gave his occupation as "waiter".

					Steve

    re .6
    
    > I heard on the radio (WBCN) this morning that when Reubens was
    > arrested, he gave his occupation as "waiter".
    
    He played a waiter in the movie "The Blue Brothers".  Is that good
    enough?
    
    Rumor now is that he won't be represented by a lawyer.  Apparently he
    figures he can get himself off.
    
    - M

	Yeah, they asked him about a change of venue, maybe to a
	different state.

	He said he'd rather stick it out in Florida.

 One more like that and I start throwing tomatoes!

    How does one defend oneself against such charges? If these allegations
    turn out to be true, the only "real" plea he can cop is temporary 
    insanity, and for some sneaking suspicion, I don't think that (if he
    *did* do) this, it was an uncalculated stunt. Just too coincidental
    after the demise of his show.

    re .3
    
    > USA Today had a psychologist who recommended to tell the kids that
    > "He made a mistake.  Everyone makes mistakes even grownups and PeeWee
    > made a big mistake."
    
    Does this psychologist have kids?!  Even my almost-first-grader would
    be annoyed and frustrated by that recommended explanation.  She'd say
    "Mistake?  Whaddya mean, 'mistake," what KIND of mistake?  They don't
    arrest people for *mistakes*.  What did he *DO?*"
    
    My contention about the TV report is that it would still have been
    newsorthy to report "Actor Paul Reubens was arrested today and charged
    with [whatever]... on our 11:00 report we'll discuss the impact to his
    career as a popular children's television character."
    
    Leslie

    re.11
    
       I agree.  My 7 year old son would want to the exact details...he's
    very curious.  And I would have told him the truth, "PeeWee Herman
    was playing with himself in a public theatre and you are only supposed
    to do that in private."
    
    
                                     L.J.

    Everybody's been talking about Pee Wee Herman this, and Pee Wee Herman
    that -- the reality is this:  Pee Wee Herman wasn't arrested, Paul
    Reuben was.  The actor is *not* the character, despite his strong
    identification with the role.  
    
    					andrew

    RE:-.12
    
    I don't recall any reports about his *masterbating* in public...merely
    that he and a few of his "good buddies" went into this adult movie theatre
    and that Reuben was arrested along with his friends for "exposing a male
    organ". Sounded more like a sick sophomoric kind of practical joke more 
    than anything else. Something I could see some overly exhuberant (and 
    overly intoxicated) fraternity do during spring break down in Florida
    (and Sarasota, Florida is where it happened, too).

        Sounds like a victimless crime to me.  According  to  the  news
        reports,  he  did  not  expose  himelf to little old ladies  or
        housewives  or  professional  women or children of any age.  He
        did not  try  to  involve any other person, male or female.  He
        was in a  pseudo  porno  adults  only  movie  theatre  and  was
        observed by police officers who were there to try to arrest men
        who  were  trying  to  achieve    their   own  kind  of  sexual
        satisfaction.  The guy didn't rape  anyone,  confront anyone or
        threaten anyone.
        
        Don't the police have a real job to do?
        

    
    sending the law around to snoop is a standard method for the
    city fathers to tell the lessee that their type of buisness is
    in poor taste..�A

I always knew he was weird.  I've never liked him, his image, or even his name. 
What kind of a name is "pee wee" anyhow?  I've often wondered if he wasn't a
child molestor or some other type of pervert, hiding behind an image.

Being in the public eye, he ought to know how it would turn out, pulling on his
tally-wacker in public... regardless of the type of public he was surrounded
by.

OK, "pee wee" fans... make my day.  :^)

    I don't condone what happened.  But, I wonder how many strippers were
    arrested for "exposing" themselves?
    
    

    -1
    
    Are you saying that there were strippers there, dropping their pants?
    

According to this weekend's papers, Reubens tried to avoid arrest by
promising to do a children's benefit show.  This was refused.  He then
had his lawyer make the same offer to a local newspaper in an attempt to
get them to kill the story.  No go.  His lawyer has withdrawn from the case.

Diane English's column in today's Boston Globe suggests that this may be
a blessing in disguise for Reubens, as his kid-oriented career was over
anyway.  English suggests he change his image, start appearing with Andrew 
Dice Clay, and so on.

					Steve

<<Rumor now is that he won't be represented by a lawyer.  Apparently he
<<figures he can get himself off.



HAR!!!!!

    I feel badly for this fellow.  
    
    Why don't the police patrol the streets?  Why must they patrol X-rated
    theatres ..... perhaps they were in the theatre watching this flick as
    well.  
    
    Considering all that's going on, I think the police are getting way out
    of line in their conduct.  Why don't they go after the muggers,
    rapists, and murderers .... people who do REAL damage!!!
    
    Romy
    

 I dunno the guy is a pre-vert to me, and this is just more 
trash to dump on our young kids heads at a time when they should be 
unconcerned about such matters, although my eight year old told me 
he could catch his death of cold from exposure and left it at that.

 I don't think being a flasher is a victomless crime and its quite
possible that this guy was up to no good for a long time. 

 Also I think the big reason that Pee Wee herman vs his real name
flap was born out of the fact that there was no Paul Reuben
persona' just a PeeWee Herman. For example Superman was always played
by one actor or another even the guy that killed himself was an actor
first and just the guy who played superman second. You never saw a 
Paul Reuben on Carson or ET.
Mick
 

    
    Funny how the news didn't broadcast the mug shot of the other people
    arrested. 
    
    I still love you Pee Wee!
    
    bonnie

    RE:.23

    >  I don't think being a flasher is a victomless crime and its quite
    > possible that this guy was up to no good for a long time. 

    Who was the victim?  The cop who was straining his eyes in the back of
    a dark theatre to see what was going on or maybe somebody out on the
    street.  I think your wrong, this is a victomless crime if I ever heard
    of one.  The police should have been out in the streets looking for
    some real criminals.

    Joe 

    I can't believe that some noters are saying "the police should have
    been out on the streets arresting..."
    
    Fact:  If the police are called, they MUST respond.  Doesn't matter if
    they are called for a murder, or Pee Wee 'twitching his switch.'  They
    DID their job.  Plan and simple.
    

    
    >>>    Funny how the news didn't broadcast the mug shot of the other
    people arrested. 
    
    Simple.  The 'other people' were not news worthy.  They don't come into
    your living room every week to entertain your kids.
    

    RE:.28

  >  >>>    Funny how the news didn't broadcast the mug shot of the other
  >  people arrested. 
    
  >  Simple.  The 'other people' were not news worthy.  They don't come into
  >  your living room every week to entertain your kids.

    And neither does Paul Reuben come into your living room to entertain
    your kids and he isn't news worthy either.  PeeWee Herman might be
    news worthy (not in my opinion) but then again he didn't do anything.
    I think you people are mixing a real person with a fictional Sat. 
    morning cartoon character.  PeeWee Herman isn't real, he never will
    be, he's never committed any crimes and doesn't even vaguely resemble 
    any criminals I've ever seen.

    Joe 

    
    That's like saying, Richard Nixen was a saint.  It was the President
    that ordered all those tape recorders!
    

> Fact:  If the police are called, they MUST respond. 

 Whoa. Not only is this just plain false, but it's a dangerous concept. There
is absolutely nothing to stop them from ignoring a call. Nothing. If they
don't feel like it, they don't have to do anything. The very worst thing that
can happen is the local papers get a hold of an ignored call and raise a stink. 
BFD.

 The fact of the Ruebens case is that nobody called. A spokesman for the county
sheriff's office said that they send officers to porno shops etc when they
don't have any high crimes to solve. This is usually called "busy work" or
"make-work."

 The Doctah

    
    From my understanding, they can't take it on themselves to ignore a
    call.  If they get bogus calls from one source... another story.
    
    On slow nights perhaps they do check on these places.  Fact is this...
    did he break the law.  If he did, then they were doing their duty.  If
    people don't like it, they can crusade to have the laws changed.
    

    >From my understanding, they can't take it on themselves to ignore a
    >call.  If they get bogus calls from one source... another story.
    
    Yes, they can -- not only can they, they have, and there's nothing you
    can do about it.  People who have sued the police for not responding
    have lost their lawsuits -- the ruling was very clear: the police do
    NOT have to respond.
    
    					andrew

    I have to agree with the remarks in .29 - I think people tend to
    confuse TV personalities with real life.  I fail to see how children
    that formerly watched this guy on TV are now going to be affected
    by something the the actor did (somewhere on the globe).
    
    What if Roy Rogers and Dale Evans had been child molesters and no
    one ever found out about it?  Does this mean that all of us that
    watched them as we were growing up are destined to be criminals?
    Or would it only take effect on us if they were found out?  I just
    can't get the linkage.

If I may step up on my "as a father" soapbox for a moment, I'd say that
part of the problem with the national obsession with such problems is that
parents, by and large, don't do enough to present themselves as role
models for their children, leaving the kids to latch on to whatever
fantasy figure strikes their fancy.  Thus when "our beloved celebrities",
be they actors, sports figures or even elected officials, prove that they
are, after all, human like the rest of us, we go beserk.

It's not just kids, though; indeed sometimes I wonder if adults don't have
the problem worse, what with people who can't separate an actor's role
from the actor, the obsession with "celebrities", etc.

In the case of Paul Reubens, though, there is something unusual.  Reubens
NEVER appeared "out of character" in the public eye.  He was ALWAYS
Pee Wee Herman during interviews, etc.  His whole shtick was to make everyone
believe that this nitwit character was real.  So it's no wonder that the
reaction was as harsh as it was when the facade crumbled.  It would have
happened sooner or later.

				Steve

    Perhaps we are all looking for heros, reguardless if we are children or
    adults. John Wayne was mine for allot of my childhood. And when a star
    falls from grace in such a humanly manner it seems to give us a shock.
    It wakes us up from our personal utopias to the shocking real world.
    Something that we do not always need. Perhaps if Pee-Wee gathered his
    friends at home, ran his flick, girls or what ever he was watching,
    nothing could be done about it. Perhaps Pee-Wee could still be
    employeed, we could all still laugh at his antics, and the sun would
    set agian in peace across our livingrooms.

I think the TV network is thinking only of protecting itself, not our
children.  They pulled his show in order to be seen as doing something.
Pure public relations.  Imagine if they had NOT pulled his show - there
undoubtedly would have been picketers on their doorstep, and they would
have been put in the position of defending Rubens.  Not something they
wanted to do.

Ben

    I can just imagine what the Rev. Donald Wildman thought of this one...he's
    been protesting the "immoral" behavior exhibited in both television and 
    radio programming since the late sixties.
    
    He'll probably want to see the "Muppet Babies" show more scrutinized
    now...you know, "Just to keep an eye on the antics of that suspicious
    looking frog and pig couple, there..." ;')

    RE: .27
    
    Where do you live?  Over the Rainbow?
    
    What's this "FACT" business about what police MUST do?  As a member of
    a neighborhood patrol, I can tell you first hand....That ain't so.
    
    Police, like people in any other vocation selectively participate in
    the areas of their job that they are comfortable with, interested in,
    are willing to deal with and chuck the rest.
    
    We routinely call the police regarding crimes of speeding to suspected
    burglary.  What we usually get is; "take down the license plate
    number...list the items that were stolen...don't get involved, it's a
    family thing."
    
    To me, most of them are glorifed Meter-Maids.
    
    

    Nobody in this note has shown any compassion for Mr. Reubens.
    Personally, I think it's rather pitiful that his sex life is so boring
    or non-existent that he goes to the xxx-rated theatres to have some
    fun. That is a great tragedy in itself.
    I was never fond of the Pee Wee character but I do have compassion for
    the actor. I also think it's pretty disgraceful that cops are out there
    trying to arrest people for seeking a sexual thrill. They are clearly
    not going to offend the rest of the patrons in that setting. Most
    likely they would be discreet about what they do and I would hate to
    pay taxes to support that type of police activity anyway.

    
    >sex life is so boring or non-existent that he goes to the xxx-rated 
    >theatres
    
    this decsribes lots of people, most of whom refrain from relieving
    their frustrations in public.
    
    

    
    
    Some people enjoy the "danger" or "thrill" that comes with/from having
    sex in public.  Masturbation in public might fall into that category.
    It might be a little presumptuous to call Paul R. "sick or ill".  Now,
    I would agree that STUPID would be an apt description.