[00:16] Meg: Welcome to Desperately Seeking the 80s. I am Meg.

[00:19] Jessica: And I'm Jessica. And Meg and I have been friends since 1982. We got through middle school and high school together here in New York City.

[00:27] Meg: Where we still live and where we podcast about New York city in the 80s. I do ripped from the headlines.

[00:34] Jessica: And I do pop culture.

[00:36] Meg: I have good news.

[00:38] Jessica: Thank God. You might be the only person in America who does. Seriously?

[00:42] Meg: Yes.

[00:42] Jessica: Bring it.

[00:43] Meg: We have one more review.

[00:45] Jessica: Shut it down. Who is the miraculous wizard, sorceress, genius who did that?

[00:52] Meg: I don't know. It's anonymous.

[00:54] Jessica: Really?

[00:54] Meg: Yeah.

[00:55] Jessica: Not even a handle. Interesting.

[00:58] Meg: So there's still time. If you have not written us a.

[01:02] Jessica: Review, as it is not yet the actual end of the world, there seems to be time for you to do a review.

[01:09] Meg: On Apple podcasts, it takes them a couple days to, you know, approve it and put it up there. But once you do, just, like, drop me a line and say, by the way, I gave you a review, and I will definitely send out some merch. I'm just. I'm going to lean in on that. The bribery.

[01:27] Jessica: That's great. At some point, I'd like a hat.

[01:30] Meg: I know. You just have to remind me. It's. They're very warm.

[01:35] Jessica: This is why I'm asking, because it's 7 degrees right now, so whatever, it's worth getting colder.

[01:40] Meg: I have another piece of interesting good news.

[01:45] Jessica: Right on.

[01:46] Meg: Our numbers were up 20% this week.

[01:49] Jessica: But for why, I have no idea how interesting.

[01:52] Meg: I know.

[01:53] Jessica: Did we talk about anything particularly probing? Were we hilarious the week before in some untoward way?

[02:03] Meg: You got me and I got you.

[02:05] Jessica: But it's good news that happened.

[02:07] Meg: And now on to the not so good news. We were talking earlier off mic, about how Trump was talking today, or he talked yesterday for about two hours in some rambling way about 80s nostalgia. Basically, he remembers when he was playing baseball and looking at Creed more.

[02:31] Jessica: Well, that wouldn't even have been 80s nostalgia if he's talking about his childhood. Right.

[02:35] Meg: Like, that would have been like late.

[02:38] Jessica: 70S, 60s, he old girl.

[02:41] Meg: Right. But I guess the point is that this whole idea of like, New York City, the good old days in New York City and how it's changed and all those people in Creedmoor are now living out on the streets. And we of course, know that the people who are living in Creedmoor were in desperate, A desperate, desperate situation. But.

[03:02] Jessica: But the horrors of mental health care and psychiatric institutions were death traps.

[03:10] Meg: Right? And the fact that torture chambers and the fact that Trump looks back at that, you know, ah, the good old days.

[03:16] Jessica: Well, I think it speaks to two things. One of them is his complete inability to see anything that's not him. So Creedmoor was just a building where things happened. And I could see it with my eyes, you know, that's that. But we were talking about this earlier, that it made us reflect on the nature of our nostalgia with this podcast. And we both drew the distinction that we are nostalgic for our youth but not for all of the goings on of the 80s. That that's our backdrop. And to quote both of us, let's be honest, at some point during this podcast, you know, it's about New York in the 80s. We care about that.

[04:07] Meg: Yeah. And that the more we learn about it, I mean, I do, obviously this is a nostalgic podcast. We have a great amount of affection for this city and for the times that we grew up in. But I think we're also more clear eyed about it now than we were then. And there's something really important about that.

[04:27] Jessica: Well, I think that's the mission. I mean, we've spoken about this again in so many different ways over the years that we've been doing this, but this is also an investigation into the world of our youths.

[04:40] Meg: Youths, exactly.

[04:41] Jessica: And that was always the intent, is that we remembered things as children and teenagers and as adults, looking back, it's a combination of now we have more facts because hindsight. But also we have the wisdom of adults being able to process information very differently and put it in context. And how we see the things that happened around us as teens and kids that we might have shrugged at or just been like, wow, that was sick. That now we see it, you know, in, in Technicolor. And that's really what we talk about.

[05:17] Meg: Right. And that I just think it's notable that, you know what Trump, in his heyday in the 80s in New York City, when he was putting his name on everything, I mean, so much of his, like, worldview is going back to that time, which actually wasn't so great.

[05:37] Jessica: Certainly not. But you know, the other thing about. And this is people's memories, right. And nostalgia is that he was getting skewered in the press constantly in the 80s. No one was saying what a super genius it was. Look at this tacky motherfucker who's painting the plaza gold and has dipped.

[06:00] Meg: You know, I don't think he remembers that though.

[06:03] Jessica: I don't think he remembers that he's wearing diapers.

[06:07] Meg: I don't think he remembers all the bad Press?

[06:09] Jessica: Of course not.

[06:10] Meg: He thinks he wrote Art of the Deal, for crying out loud. Anyway, I. Yeah, we talked about Trump. We did it.

[06:17] Jessica: We did it. Jinx by me and Coke.

[06:20] Meg: It's over, but we're done. No more Trump Today.

[06:32] Jessica: Today.

[06:34] Meg: I'm not sure if we have discussed Blue Lagoon on this podcast.

[06:40] Jessica: I believe we have, because I talked about sneaking into the movies with Minaz to see One Night in Heaven with Christopher Atkins.

[06:49] Meg: Okay.

[06:50] Jessica: And there was a mention of the whole Christopher Atkins oeuvre.

[06:54] Meg: This is my engagement question for you about Blue Lagoon. Would you tell me? You know, I hate the word favorite, but standout scene from Blue Lagoon. And you can have more than one.

[07:10] Jessica: Damn. I remember. I remember being affected by their discovery that the only adult was dead on the island.

[07:22] Meg: Do you remember how they find out he's dead? I do.

[07:26] Jessica: I love that you're raising your hand. Tell me.

[07:29] Meg: He's on the ground. And the adult was alive for a while after they were stranded, Right. And then one day, he's not alive anymore, and they're poking at him and a crab crawls out of his mouth, and that's how they know that he's alive.

[07:47] Jessica: It was disgusting.

[07:48] Meg: Okay, that's one. Okay, another.

[07:52] Jessica: Well, you know, obviously, the whole ridiculousness of, like, this. Adam and Eve on the island, inventing sex for the first time.

[08:01] Meg: So you remember when they first.

[08:04] Jessica: I remembered. I remember. Well, I have to admit, it's been a very long time since I've seen the film, so my memories are a little impressionistic, but I remember. I remember them sort of, like, looking at each other like they were fighting, and then they wind up wrestling or something, and then they wind up kissing, and then they're confused by it, and then all sexual hell breaks loose. Do you. And I remember them in the boat at the end with the berries and the baby.

[08:33] Meg: Oh, right, she has a baby. I completely forgot.

[08:35] Jessica: I mean, all that wrestling leads to something now, doesn't it?

[08:39] Meg: Do you remember when she got her period?

[08:42] Jessica: Yes, I do. I do. That was on my list. Yes.

[08:46] Meg: And that's not actually how you get your period.

[08:48] Jessica: I don't remember anything other than the fact that she did and was confused. Basically. This movie was a lot of them being confused, so. Yes, but how did she get. How did she.

[08:58] Meg: She.

[08:58] Jessica: What?

[08:59] Meg: Do you remember in the water, and suddenly the water.

[09:02] Jessica: Shark attack.

[09:03] Meg: Becomes red. Like a shark attack?

[09:05] Jessica: No.

[09:06] Meg: And frankly, see, we were four years younger than Brooke Shields, right? I thought that was probably how it was gonna happen. That's not how it happens.

[09:17] Jessica: What year did that film come out?

[09:20] Meg: I don't know.

[09:21] Jessica: It was after Pretty Baby.

[09:23] Meg: Right. So I should know because it must.

[09:26] Jessica: Have been like 82. 82 that that came out.

[09:30] Meg: Maybe we should look it up. Yeah, but anyway, that.

[09:33] Jessica: So that scarred you, the. The period thing that she was like, surrounded in a.

[09:38] Meg: Honestly, I just had bad information. Well, for a while. And then when I did get my period, I was like, what? That's not how Brooke Shields got her period.

[09:49] Jessica: This little teaspoon.

[09:51] Meg: What?

[09:52] Jessica: That crazy. Yeah, Well, I do remember, but I did not remember that it was in the water and that it was so.

[09:59] Meg: No, it's like Jaws.

[10:00] Jessica: That's complete. I mean, that's kind of hilarious a little bit. All right, all right.

[10:05] Meg: And then he's totally freaked out. He's completely.

[10:07] Jessica: As well. He should have been. Could you imagine if you're hanging out with your playmate and sudden, let's pretend the shoe is on the other foot. You're hanging out with Steve, and suddenly there's. Steve is sitting in a pool of blood going, I don't feel sick. What's wrong?

[10:25] Meg: I also remember she felt embarrassed, as one would.

[10:30] Jessica: All right, anyway.

[10:31] Meg: All right, go ahead. My sources are the Guardian, the New York Times, Pretty Baby, which. Not the movie, but the documentary about Brooke Shields. Did you see it?

[10:42] Jessica: I did.

[10:42] Meg: Oh, great. I'm so glad. And There Was a Little Girl, which was a memoir by Brooke Shields about her relationship with her mother.

[10:53] Jessica: Yes, her mother was a real cuckoo.

[10:56] Meg: Well, we are going to be discussing some things in today's story, and my request is just maybe hold off.

[11:04] Jessica: Dial it back.

[11:05] Meg: Not dial it back exactly, but hold off on. I. I completely want to hear your opinion. Obviously, I just want to hear it when you have all the information.

[11:17] Jessica: Oh, wait, are you saying. Don't fly off the handle.

[11:21] Meg: Just. Just hold off. Just hold off. Okay. Okay. Because you've got your preconceived idea before this story, and then maybe, I don't know, maybe you'll have a different idea as the story progresses.

[11:34] Jessica: I'm open.

[11:34] Meg: I'm just throwing it out there.

[11:35] Jessica: Let's hit it.

[11:36] Meg: In November 1981, Supreme Court Justice Edward Greenfield ruled against Terry Shields, mother of Brook Shields, calling her, quote, maternally protective and exploitative at the same time. Terry and Brooke had filed a lawsuit against the photographer Gary Gross, attempting to prevent him from commercially distributing nude photographs he took of a 10 year old Brooke in 1975. Do you know about this?

[12:09] Jessica: Oh, this is hitting. This is. No, this is definitely ringing bells. Yes.

[12:13] Meg: Okay. Brooke Was a child model from the age of 11 months when she was featured in an Ivory soap ad. Her mother, Teri, convinced Ford models to take Brooke on as a client, even though they didn't have a child division. I mean, she was a force of nature. Single mother. The father was really interesting, actually. He was a very traditional guy. They divorced when she was just a few months old, and he never saw any of her movies.

[12:48] Jessica: Hmm.

[12:49] Meg: He remarried, and his family became her, you know, step siblings. And she had a very good relationship with all of them, but it was a very different from this sort of bohemian life she was living with her single mother in New York. Brooke appeared in many commercials and clothing ads, and in 1975, she did a photo shoot with Gary Gross. The photos were part of a series Gross called Woman in a Child. The prepubescent Brooke is nude, wearing a lot of makeup, posed in and out of a bathtub, staring directly into the camera at times. A couple of the photos in the series are unobscured, full frontal. The photos were intended to be published in a book called Sugar and Spice, which was published by Playboy. Press contracts were signed by Terry Shields, and brooke was paid $450. And Ford modeling, they set this whole thing up. By the way, Gary gross was paid $1,000. But Brooke Shields had become a household name in the six years since the photos had been taken. Now we get to the trial. She had starred in Louis Malz's film Pretty Baby, the wildly popular Blue Lagoon, in which she also appeared. They. I think they had a body double, but they did show her hair in front of her boobs.

[14:25] Jessica: They glued it onto her like an outfit.

[14:28] Meg: And Franco Zeffirelli's Endless Love. And she was the face and body of Calvin Klein jeans.

[14:36] Jessica: Mm, I remember.

[14:37] Meg: What was her catchphrase?

[14:39] Jessica: Nothing comes between me and my Calvins.

[14:41] Meg: Yeah, Time magazine had her face on its cover proclaiming it the 80s. Look. Gary Gross realized he was sitting on a gold mine now, so he started trying to sell the pictures.

[14:56] Jessica: The shields of the book never happened.

[14:58] Meg: Yeah, the book happened, but that was supposed to be the one usage. That's what the shields were saying.

[15:06] Jessica: Okay?

[15:07] Meg: You got to use it once. You don't get to just sell it to anybody. The shields One million dollar lawsuit claimed the photos were contractually only to be used one time and further distribution would cause, quote, irreparable harm to Brooks career. Gross's lawyers argued that Brooke's career was, in fact, that of, quote, a young vamp and a harlot. A seasoned sexual veteran, A provocative Child woman, an erotic and sensual sex symbol. The Lolita of her generation and therefore her career would not be harmed by these nude photos. And so it. We should say if people do not know. In Pretty Baby she played child prostitute.

[15:59] Jessica: Yes.

[16:00] Meg: And in Endless Love she lost her virginity.

[16:04] Jessica: Yes. In a relationship with a boyfriend.

[16:07] Meg: Yeah. And we've already talked about Endless Love and we've talked about.

[16:13] Jessica: That was endless.

[16:14] Meg: I'm sorry. We've already talked about Blue Lagoon and we've talked about The Calvin Klein ads were provocative.

[16:21] Jessica: They were absolutely intended to be conversation starter.

[16:27] Meg: Interesting to hear her talk about how when she was doing them, she thought, oh, my God, I have to memorize this page worth of information. And. Cause it wasn't just nothing comes between me and my colleagues.

[16:43] Jessica: No, it was like an interview. It was like someone interviewing her and her giving these kind of, you know.

[16:48] Meg: She talks about genes, she talks about the genetic code and all that kind of stuff. So Genesis, like the genetic code versus genes on your body. But she had to memorize all of that. None of that was off the cuff. That was all scripted. When you watch those, you can see them on YouTube. It's provocative. She didn't know she was being provocative, but she was being provocative. Right. Okay.

[17:12] Jessica: I don't think any human being could look at that now.

[17:15] Meg: Any adult. My point is, from her vantage point, it.

[17:20] Jessica: No, it wasn't her. I mean, as an adult. No, no, no.

[17:22] Meg: It wasn't her intent.

[17:23] Jessica: How old was she when she did those?

[17:26] Meg: 15.

[17:27] Jessica: Yeah. I'm just curious. That had nothing to do with intent. It was just, what do you know at 15 about what you're doing?

[17:34] Meg: But you could maybe be play acting to be provocative. You could be doing what you think is provocative, but she actually wasn't.

[17:42] Jessica: Well, I mean, I think that just brings up a whole, you know, this is a. This is an entirely different conversation. But it's. Teenage sexuality is a very confused thing. And girls particularly, where at that time, you know, you were defined by how you were viewed and you were told to define yourself as a reaction to what the reaction was to you. So it's so circular and so confusing that to say, well, she knew that she was sexy and figuring out her sexuality at 15, as you might with, you know, some kids today where they've been schooled on performative sexuality, I think it's. It's a different thing.

[18:24] Meg: That's my point. That with her, it was very different. She was. And she talks about that in the documentary. She was very disassociated from her body and from her sexuality. And she'd never even kissed somebody. I mean, she just. Yeah. She says she disassociated an interesting.

[18:43] Jessica: A sign of not being terribly happy that you're disassociating through your life slash career. Slash life slash career.

[18:54] Meg: I mean, she says everything was fine, and she's one of those few child stars who wasn't bruised by it. But you kind of read between the lines, or I do. Anyway, again, like you were saying. Whole different conversation, which we'll have at the end of this. But let's get back to the trial. Judge Greenfield actually agreed with Gross's lawyers. He agreed with a photographer. In his ruling, he stated that Terry Shields had sought to portray her daughter as, quote, sexually provocative and exciting while attempting to preserve her innocence. She can't have it both ways. While attempting to provide her with the normal life of a high school girl, she has also exposed her to the world of the discos.

[19:38] Jessica: Wait, did you just say discos?

[19:40] Meg: Yeah, that's what he said. With Studio 54, regines and xenon being as much a part of her normal diet as. As her high school homework, Mrs. Shields is obviously a concerned mother living for her child, but she is also living through her child. In pushing forward Brooke's career, she has been eager, aggressive and guilty of mistakes, one of which has resulted in this lawsuit. The embarrassment of Ms. Shields at this juncture is poignant and understandable. Regrettably, the court finds that. That her personal embarrassment and anticipation of the reaction of her friends is not tantamount to irreparable harm. This is especially so in view of the nature of the films in which she has appeared, which are suggestive, if not explicit, in what they reveal. The judge went on to say that the photos had a, quote, sultry, sensual appeal, but that they were not pornographic. Quote, they have no erotic appeal, except to possibly perverse minds.

[20:47] Jessica: What are you gonna do with a guy like that? I mean, how do you even respond? Except for the child molesters, who I think don't really count, no one's gonna be titillated.

[20:57] Meg: It's.

[20:58] Jessica: I don't even know how to respond to this. It's so insane. Meg.

[21:02] Meg: Well, okay, now we're talking about one picture in particular that I've described.

[21:07] Jessica: Have you seen it?

[21:08] Meg: Yeah, I've seen it. Okay. She's skinny and small and prepubescent. No body hair, absolutely no breasts whatsoever. She's got lots and lots of makeup on, and she's looking directly into the camera.

[21:27] Jessica: She's.

[21:28] Meg: And she's. Also just got out of the bathtub, so she's wet.

[21:32] Jessica: Okay.

[21:34] Meg: Okay. At the same time that all this is going on, another photographer, Richard Prince, took a photo of the Gary Gross photo of Brooke and made an art piece which he called Spiritual America. He rented a shop front on the Lower east side and blew it up to life size and displayed it in the window in a cheap gold frame. Prince called the original image, quote, an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman. A body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's gotten a different birthday. In other words, she looks like a woman because of all the makeup.

[22:19] Jessica: Right.

[22:20] Meg: He described his conceptual work as a celebration of freedom of expression.

[22:26] Jessica: How is that conceptual work? I'm just wondering if that came up.

[22:30] Meg: Because he put it in the. He. He blew it up and he put it in a cheap gold frame and he called it Spiritual America. So it's a comment on America. All right, flash forward to 1992. Richard Prince, who became an incredibly well known and popular, successful, you know, whatever, he made a shitload of money off of his conceptual art. He was preparing for his show at the Whitney, and he actually asked Gross for his permission to include his appropriated work. And Gary Gross accepted $2,000. Spiritual America, which is now that same photograph, except in the gold frame, was also a part of a Richard Prince retrospective at the Guggenheim in 2007. Two years later, the Tate Modern in London planned to include it in their Pop Life exhibition. The exhibition catalog described it as a bath damp and decidedly underage. Brook Shields. When Prince invites us to ogle Brook Shields in her prepubescent nakedness, his impulse has less to do with his desire to savor the lubricious titillations that it was shot to spark in its original context then, a profound fascination for the child star's story. All right, that's what the Tate thought. There's more about who she became or something. I don't know. Scotland Yard, on the other hand.

[24:15] Jessica: Okay, great.

[24:17] Meg: That's when they entered the story. The Obscene Publications Unit of the Metropolitan Police temporarily closed down the exhibit due to obscenity laws, and the work was subsequently removed. Interestingly, the Pop Life exhibition at the Tate also included Jeff Koons series Made in Heaven, which featured a large scale photo of Koons having sex with a porn model whose name is La Cicciolina.

[24:47] Jessica: Yes, I know art and Italian politics.

[24:53] Meg: All right, well, they thought that was okay, but no Brooke Shields.

[24:57] Jessica: But that makes sense too. Okay.

[24:59] Meg: I mean, Ariane, I assume the distinction was child porn versus indeed adult porn. Or is it even porn if it's high art? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Collier Shore, do you know this person?

[25:13] Jessica: No.

[25:14] Meg: Another New York based conceptual artist from the same era sublet Richard Prince's studio in the 1980s. And at that time, Spiritual America was hanging in the hallway and had yet to become an iconic work about it. She said, quote, I always thought it was a perverse picture. I really found it so disturbing. But my impression always was that Richard made the piece because it was disturbing. It tells you everything about what we fear and desire. Collier Shore later photographed Brooke Shields for Interview magazine and the two of them became friendly. And about Gary Gross, the Gary Gross photo. Collier Shore said, quote, brooke Shields didn't have a problem making that picture because she was play acting in front of the camera and that's what she does. I don't think she ever felt like she was a victim of his camera. I think she felt like she was a victim of his greed and to some extent a victim of her mother's poor judgment. I think she was happy when Richard took the picture and made something of it because it was a big fuck you to Gary Gross.

[26:23] Jessica: Interesting.

[26:24] Meg: Yeah. So I'm gonna throw something else into it to put a little bit of context that I found interesting in the documentary. A couple of people are talking about how coming out of the 60s, you had these. You know what was sexy? It was Marilyn Monroe, it was Jane Mansfield, it was Sophia Loren, it was women with bodies, grown women. These were not skinny little childlike creatures.

[26:54] Jessica: You're saying from the 60s or the 50s. 50s.

[26:56] Meg: Going into the 60s, right. Then in the 70s, we have this wave of feminism. So this is from Jean Kilbourne, co author of so Sexy, so the New Sexualized Childhood and what Parents can do to Protect Their Kids. Says in the documentary, quote, it's almost as if we're told, okay, if you're not going to be traditionally feminine, which traditionally means powerless, submissive, dependent, we'll replace you with little girls.

[27:26] Jessica: Okay.

[27:27] Meg: Interesting, right?

[27:29] Jessica: Yeah. I have a lot to say and then nothing to say. It's kind of like the Brooke Shields thing, I think. Tell me if I'm correct, didn't she eventually emancipate herself from her mother?

[27:42] Meg: No, I thought that she did that she. No, not as a child. No, no, no. It wasn't until she got married or was dating Andre Agassi that he convinced her and she was a grown woman at that point, that she should. That Terri shouldn't be her manager anymore, but she always financially supported her. Yeah.

[28:00] Jessica: I think that all of this discussion about what is art, what is artistic commentary on art, what is sexuality in one decade versus another is beside the point. I think that a 10 year old child. There is a full frontal nude photograph of a 10 year old in an obviously sexualized way put into a book that was published by a pornographic publishing house known to be specifically pornographic. There is no question about what this was and what Brooke Shields thought and.

[28:46] Meg: What its intent was.

[28:47] Jessica: Yeah. And what she thought as a 10 year old and doing a job since she was 11 months old. It's irrelevant.

[28:54] Meg: I completely agree. How many times do I say that?

[28:58] Jessica: It's absolute nonsense.

[29:00] Meg: I completely agree.

[29:01] Jessica: I know I'm on a roll now. Okay, Now I'm pissed off. No, I think, I think that the judge. The judge ruled on a contract, not on the morality of the choice. So we set that aside. I think that Terry Shields did some very, very bad things. And I think that from what, from the way that I interpreted what I saw in the Brooke Shields documentary. She never says, you know, my mother was a fucking insane monster, but she.

[29:36] Meg: Says she's was a horrible alcoholic. Yeah.

[29:39] Jessica: Yes. But I mean, the objectification of her daughter and the use of her daughter as knowingly as this hypersexualized object is. It's just. I don't know. To me it's just so obvious that it's almost beyond discussion. And the way that Brooke Shields processes it and discusses it is she's the person who was exploited. So how does that person ever really get out from under their own experience? You can't.

[30:11] Meg: Right. So I'm going to throw something else into it though, because I've read her memoir that she wrote about her relationship with her mother. Her mother was vilified and eviscerated, but Louis Mal wasn't. Franco Zeffirelli wasn't, Gary Gross wasn't. And I just wanna throw that into the mix. I'm not saying that she gets off, but I do think that there was. I mean, I remember this, unfortunately, I do remember this from like growing up, you know, being little in the 70s. I mean, we were again, we were like four years younger than Brooke Shields. But I remember my parents, friends commenting on my body and somehow it was acceptable in like bohemian circles.

[30:57] Jessica: So to your point about why not vilify the men as well as the mother, I think that I see it as two separate conversations, one of Them is you put, you were the one who decided to put your child here and tell her, this is good and we're going to sign this contract and you're going to do it. She's the gateway. So that's one responsibility and one area of moral turpitude. Okay? And there's no denying it. The men, they have the benefit of claiming artistic expression and storytelling. And so that makes it very murky. And I'm not saying they're right. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this conversation. Do you say to Zeffirelli, you can't do a story about a girl losing her virginity? Wasn't he also, he is also the one who did the Romeo and Juliet, where he was the first person to ever use actors who were the right ages for Romeo and Juliet.

[32:03] Meg: He did the Romeo and Juliet.

[32:05] Jessica: Yeah. So they were the right age. Like Olivia Hussey was the right age. I think there's more of a conversation about what's okay, what isn't, because of the, like I said, the, the choices of an artist and what you're, what. The reason I'm saying that is because you said, like, publicly she was vilified and they were not. Because for them, the, it's, they can make it a murky conversation. For her, she's the caretaker, and that becomes, for people, not a murky conversation. So I don't know.

[32:41] Meg: I, I, I mean, I don't know either. Because those pictures pornographic. Would you call Pretty Baby? What would you say about Pretty Baby?

[32:52] Jessica: I did not think it was pornographic. I think it pushed a lot of boundaries, and that was the point. But she was not having sex in the film. She wasn't. She was.

[33:02] Meg: Right. That's my point. If you call Pretty Baby, if Louis Ma was creating a piece of art, then why is the mother getting in trouble for doing that when it's a piece of art?

[33:13] Jessica: Well, but that's my opinion about that movie. Other people don't think that we're talking about public perception. So that movie is vilified today. Now, I think it is seen as being extraordinarily exploitative because of current social mores. So I'm just catching it up. So it's apples to apples. What do I think about Terry Shields? I think that she commodified her child, and that alone is problematic. Forget how the child is commodified. I don't know. I come at this also, and I say this frequently to people, I am not a parent. I take a very dispassionate view to these things because I have the luxury of doing that. And I just look at it as what would the law be? What, you know, what looks good, what looks bad, whatever.

[34:04] Meg: I think what I'm trying to do is just maybe put a little bit more balance into it because she got all the heat and they got none of it. And I actually think it is in the eye of the beholder and they knew they were making a sex object out of her. And I'm not even entirely sure that Terry Shields got that message.

[34:24] Jessica: I. You know what, here's what I think. Honestly, I am now very motivated to rewatch Pretty Baby.

[34:31] Meg: I don't know if I could do it.

[34:32] Jessica: Oh yeah, well. And I remember when I saw it, maybe in my late teens, early 20s, I was aware of the photographer who it was based on Belloc. And I was so focused on that that I didn't really think about Brooke Shields and her involvement and what must have been in her mind. And so that tells you something about my perspective, right? Like I was like, oh, you know, photography and New Orleans and that time period, like that was what caught my eye more than anything else.

[35:09] Meg: I mean we also have like Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver. I mean it was a thing.

[35:17] Jessica: I agree, but. And the reason I'm saying I want to see it again and I think that taxi drivers in the same category is were these guys making some kind of social commentary about the objectification of children and bad. Or was it he, he, he prurient interest? You know, I'm getting away with it. I don't know. I don't know. And I think a rewatch is the only way I could have a really. Well good comment.

[35:44] Meg: Let me know what you discussed.

[35:45] Jessica: Oh, hell yeah. We've talked multiple times about the war on drugs.

[36:00] Meg: Yes.

[36:01] Jessica: In the 80s and what that looked like with politicians, legislators, mayors. As you well know, I enjoy looking at the New York Times for on this day in on thus and such, in thus and such a year. And I found something on the front page of the New York Times, 1989 that I found chilling. Okay. Because it was a story, really the first story that I found to be shocking. That was what happened when the war on drugs went to its worst possible conclusion. In an article written by Michael Weinrip, January 21, 1989. The headline is Tears Handcuffs for Boy 10 Facing Judge in crack Sale. And it begins like this. This was on Hopog, long Island. The 14 year old boy drove the BMX bike. A Suffolk county police officer testified today. The 10 year old sold crack from the back of the bike. I saw six such exchanges. The officer, John McGinley testified in family court describing how the boys selling crack from a brown bag rode up and down straight path in. I don't know if it's pronounced Wyandach or Wyandack. A poor community plagued with drug dealing. God. A relative of the 10 year old said with a gasp. In a highly unusual move this week, Suffolk County. Everything wrong happens in Suffolk County.

[37:42] Meg: Suffolk county never disappoints.

[37:45] Jessica: Suffolk county judge Donald L. Operio opened family court hearings concerning the 10 year old boy. Not the 14, only the 10 year old who the police said was carrying three small plastic bags of crack and $230 when he and his friend were arrested last Sunday night. He requested that the boy not be identified because of his age, because of the reasonable likelihood that he would sell crack again, or so said the judge. That's my editorializing. The boy was held in a juvenile jail until a fact finding hearing in family court, which is the equivalent to the trial is going to happen on January 31st. Brought to court in handcuffs and carrying a Marvel comic book, he was led away in handcuffs and tears and it goes on from there. And the essence of this is that although this was for children, children who were brought up on what would be adult criminal charges would be tried in family court. The sentencing and the rehabilitation is supposed to be very different from adults. This 10 year old was treated, even though in family court as though this was a proper drug prosecution and he was on trial for dealing of drugs without any consideration for what goes into getting a 10 year old onto the back of a 14 year old's bike to deal drugs. The 14 year old already had charges against him for sodomy, strangely, yes, and other drug dealing. And this little boy, they didn't say if it was his brother or cousin, you know, relative of some kind, but obviously close enough to trust the older boy who still was 14. So this little boy is in this situation and his mother was considered too much of a risky person to put him with and his pastor was trying to make a case that he should be remanded into his custody. It was then revealed that because the boy had priors even though he was 10 and he couldn't have criminal priors under the law. Right, because it's all family court and it's all sealed. So that wouldn't make any sense. That made him not eligible to go anyplace but juvenile detention, which is jail, like it's not nice and Just as a quick side note, I know a little bit about this because the lovely Anthony Jones, my first husband, delightful man, worked in juvenile justice. He worked with and for a group that tried to make conditions for kids in detention centers better. And they designed detention centers for kids so that they would be genuinely rehabilitative. So I know a little bit about this. At the time in 1989, those were not good places to be. There was no reform, nothing good. The little boy was sort of out of it during the trial or this is a pretrial hearing. At the end of the hearing he realizes that he's not going to go home with the pastor and he bursts into tears and he's holding his comic book and I think he had like some candy, you know, some, like a, a baby. And off he goes. So I was really intrigued by this and I, I immediately did some research and I wanted to look up. Was this weird. Was this Suffolk county being Suffolk county or was this the law? Because at the time, as we've talked about many times, the war on drugs was so rabid that it was really doing anything to anybody on one hand with good reason, because you know, crack is whack. And we've talked about the bizarre drug ice. Did we talk about this?

[42:01] Meg: I think so.

[42:02] Jessica: Where I remember this. Cause I read about it in Time magazine when I was at Kenya. So it must have been 89 or 90. And it was 89 actually. It was such a powerful form of crack that you immediately died. And it was like, maybe this is not the best way to have a customer base. Exactly. Like poor idea. So I obviously trying to get this stuff off the streets. Very important. But a 10 year old is not a criminal mastermind. No, a 10 year old is not the one who's making any of the plans here. A 10 year old is at best a foot soldier.

[42:40] Meg: A disposable one, completely disposable.

[42:44] Jessica: So I looked it up and in fact there was a law enacted in 1978, the Age to bring a minor into court for a criminal prosecution in the same style that you would an adult was lowered, it was seven years old that you could begin. Yes, shocking. And then it was raised in the 90s to 13. And then in 2022 it was raised again. Which is not to say that juvenile detention centers weren't, you know, were not and are not thriving everywhere. The point is, what is the judicial response to what kids are doing on the streets? And so this kid, this little kid who you can't research because his name is not Revealed. And the Name of the 14 year old is not revealed, just got bounced straight into the system. And because his mother was a risk and because he had priors, he had no chance at either being with an adult willing to be responsible for him or even in a foster system. He was directly down the tubes at that age. And his tears were because he just thought he was going home. He had no ability to process what was happening. The legacy of the Reagan administration and the way that it took, you know, the policy was to take a flamethrower to the problem. You know, we've talked a lot about kids in New York and black kids, kids of color in New York who got swept up into bad situations or being accused of things that they did not do. This little boy is, is a perfect example.

[44:34] Meg: And the fact that you would go after a 10 year old as though that's solving the problem and not charting it back, where is it coming from? I mean you told that story about how cocaine was coming into the city and it certainly wasn't because teenagers were going out and getting it. Very rich people were profiting.

[44:59] Jessica: And the idea that a 10 year old foot soldier being incarcerated that that would have any kind of a chilling effect on the actual dealers is absurd. At one point during the hearing, the police officer McGinley was describing the way that the handoff the little boy would do, the handoff of the drugs to the buyer was as though they were shaking hands. And we all know that move from the movies. And the judge asked is, is it possible that he was shaking hands with anyone? And the officer simply said no. He testified that upon his arrival on the scene and he saw something like six transactions and he, he waited for all six because he needed backup. That when they finally did arrive, the 14 year old looked panicked, the 10 year old just looked surprised. And the 10 year old dropped the bags on the ground. Didn't explain if he dropped them because he was surprised because someone told him to. Anyway, it was really shocking to me to read this that he was being used as an example in that community because again, you know, this was in a very specific. I'm sure it was projects of some kind. They were. His family was living in a house, but it was described as a very small, dilapidated house. This was a great way to send a message to parents, I suppose. I don't know. And what the end result was supposed to be remains a mystery to me.

[46:39] Meg: There's a documentary, I can't remember the name of it, Crack Nation or something like that. I can't remember, but I've been holding off on watching it because I know it's just going to be so, so upsetting. But I also know that it will explain who's actually to blame. And it is not a 10 year old. By no means. No.

[47:03] Jessica: Who's small enough to ride on the back of a bike. I mean, this isn't a tandem bike. These are little children fitting themselves onto a bike. I think it was, he said, they said it was a BMX bike. So you can imagine he's riding on the things that jut out on either side of the back wheel. There's not a lot to say about it. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the podcast and if anyone has any thoughts or any experience in the juvenile justice system, I would love information because the article itself, as I said, because of the nature of the defendant, it's a dead end.

[47:40] Meg: Yeah, let's, let's do a follow up both on juvenile detention and also, frankly, I've been thinking about doing a story about and it was more of an issue in the 90s, but I know that it started in the 80s. I just haven't found a date that like plants me in New York in the 80s. But do you remember when people were like kidnapped from their bedrooms and sent to farms for tough love? It's all part of.

[48:08] Jessica: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was like Outward Bound kids, problematic kids. But that was a very middle class thing to do.

[48:17] Meg: True.

[48:18] Jessica: That was not.

[48:18] Meg: But the reason I bring it up is because those people were making money. And I have a feeling that, you know, the whole like incarceration system is making money. A lot of it comes down to profit.

[48:31] Jessica: Oh, 110%. There's no question. And just as an aside, when Anthony was involved in all of this, like, you know, he was working on budgets and getting grants and there was, you know, what's the government money? How's that moving around? What are the private companies or corporations that are creating the systems and building the jails and even doing like designing the flow of people through the facility? Like there are a million different types. And the other thing that was really interesting about what he was doing at the time is that he and his partner Shelley, a lovely woman, they wound up working on juvenile detention centers on Native American reservations, which was an entirely different ball of wax where the neglect was even worse that they were trying to turn around. You know, it's, it's wheels within wheels with what does it mean to incarcerate a minor? Isn't that jolly.

[49:32] Meg: Maybe Anthony can help us.

[49:33] Jessica: Maybe we should get Anthony on the show.

[49:35] Meg: Maybe he can.

[49:36] Jessica: He can provide some insight.

[49:48] Meg: So we don't even have to cut. Confer about what the tie in is for.

[49:51] Jessica: I mean, considering how it was last week, like, this is. This is just a relief.

[49:55] Meg: I know. Yeah.

[49:56] Jessica: Last one writes itself.

[49:57] Meg: Pulling teeth. This week it's underage children in adult situations.

[50:03] Jessica: No notes.

[50:04] Meg: Exactly. Children.

[50:06] Jessica: Think of the children.

[50:08] Meg: Children.

[50:09] Jessica: It's set. What time is it right now? It's 7:28. Do you know where your children are? Hopefully not in the back of a bike or having pornographic photos taken of them.

[50:20] Meg: So we have this idea. You know how we talked about Splash last week and our dear friend Nick, who is a BFF of the podcast, wrote in with strong feelings about Splash.

[50:34] Jessica: Very strong feelings.

[50:35] Meg: Very strong feelings. And he wants to do a watch party. And so we thought we should all do a watch party.

[50:42] Jessica: Yes.

[50:42] Meg: So Jessica and I will watch Splash and we want you guys to watch Splash too this week and write in and tell us what you think and we will read your your thoughts about Splash on the podcast. And this podcast that we will discuss it on will be on February 4th. If you can watch Splash and write in before February 4th, we would love that. That would be so much fun.

[51:12] Jessica: That would be amazing. And just for the record, Nick really disagreed with my take on the fact that it was an objectification of Daryl Hannah. And you know, he's a very astute guy. So maybe he's right and maybe his memory is much sharper.

[51:31] Meg: So I think this is gonna be a spicy little rewatch.

[51:35] Jessica: Spicy little fish tale. Woo hoo.

[51:40] Meg: Sam.