
Sounds sensational doesn’t it?
As I get older, I tend to question how news is “constructed” to sell a story. It’s like Edward R. Murrow in drag, totally overblown in that attention whore way. “LOOK AT ME!!! ME!! READ ME!!!” My guess is it’s probably some underaged Thai ladyboy prostitute. The news can’t say “ladyboy” because that would indicate pre-existing knowledge or interest. (Much like Fox Newscasters accidentally saying “teabagging” when they meant to say “tea party.”) And rape here is probably indicative of “statutory rape,” legally involving minors, not like the steamy tear-off-my-clothes-and-slap-me-around Max Hardore style rape that we all know and love (but won’t admit to either)
The next question is, who turned him in? After all, western men knocking around Thailand looking for sex of ill-repute are a dime a dozen. Let’s not pretend here: Western men go to Thailand only for two things: to get a lollipop, or to have a lollipop removed. Anything else would be like going to Samoa for its Fondue. I say it’s probably a competing Russian pianist who couldn’t keep his stage fright jitters in check. He probably had it in for Pletnev, much like Gould wanted Van Cliburn’s head on a stick for receiving a parade for bringing Bach to Russia in the 50s.
That’s not to say I condone any of this and all this is okay. It’s only to say morality has a strange way of attaching itself as a simulacrum for other qualities. I know of at least one dude who got oral attention at work and many thought that automatically meant he couldn’t run a country. So if Pletnev like young girls with joysticks, it doesn’t mean his Scarlatti readings should be dismissed. His Sonata in B Kk87 is as brilliant as Clara Haskil’s.
Take me for example. I can’t play Scarlatti to save my life.
Does that automatically infer that I enjoy rough sex with a copious helping of Bukkake?
Well, it depends on what your definition of is is.







