# Was David Bowie A Paedophile?



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

There's a lot going on about the freak, Michael Jackson, at the moment.

At the time, many people of our age stuck him in there with Jimmy Saville .... "yeah ... but ... you know what ...?"

Some contend that he was wholly innocent. David Bowie however, is on multple records and in his own words, as having had sex with "hundreds" of girls, some of whom were very young. Under 16 when he was an adult.

Leave aside that Bowie was "a Brixtonite" and the darling of shitloads of hypocrite twats on  here. Fucking nonce apologists?

Why is he different to Michael Jackson?

Is it because he was white? The reluctance to condemn Bowie as a billionaire child rapist, whilst going after the monkey-enslaving, shit-song-making, funny looking, black/white/variably shaded dude, would suggest so.

Let's delve into this.

What's the difference between shitbags like Bowie, Wyman, et al; and Jacko?

Is it just a function of age, race, and gender?

Why is it ok to rape 12, 13, 14, and 15 year old girls; but not ok to diddle (and analy rape, I believe) boys a trifle younger?

Let's dance.


----------



## andysays (Mar 8, 2019)

Always crashing in the same car, eh Spymaster...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Always crashing in the same car, eh Spymaster...


Have you got a point to make, wanker?


----------



## souljacker (Mar 8, 2019)

What a troll.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

This'll be fun. There's probably an interesting conversation to be had about historical cultural norms, patriarchy and modern society, and why this means they are viewed differently, but the chances of having that conversation, rather than just having a bun fight is basically zero.
Also you should have mentioned john peel in your op for full effect.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

souljacker said:


> What a troll.


Bowie = Ok
Jackson = Paedo

Let's hope we don't find any inconsistencies in your posting history.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 8, 2019)

Some other differences between Bowie and Jackson are that he was never prosecuted or sued over his behaviour, AFAIK, and I don't think anybody's found any victims to speak on the record who consider themselves victims - Bowie was also apparently well-behaved during the last 25 or 30 years of his life so I think it's easier for people to draw a distinction between young and old Bowie and try to portray his coke-fueled behaviour in the 70s as a youthful mistake.

None of that excuses what he did, of course - giving underage groupies alcohol and drugs and having sex with them is horrible, predatory, and criminal behaviour, any way you look at it - but I think unless there's an explosive 'Leaving Neverland'-style documentary in the works, we'll probably see a gradual chipping away of Bowie's legacy rather than the rapid fall from grace Jackson seems to be experiencing.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 8, 2019)

The Princess Di levels of people still pretending to be upset about Bowie being dead is pretty amusing. 

But fucking 12 year olds?


----------



## andysays (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Have you got a point to make, wanker?


Five years...

...is how long you'll get banned for this


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Some other differences between Bowie and Jackson are that he was never prosecuted or sued over his behaviour, AFAIK, and I don't think anybody's found any victims to speak on the record who consider themselves victims - Bowie was also apparently well-behaved during the last 25 or 30 years of his life so I think it's easier for people to draw a distinction between young and old Bowie and try to portray his coke-fueled behaviour in the 70s as a youthful mistake.


Ahhh, gotcha.

Well that's ok then.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Five years...
> 
> ...is how long you'll get banned for this


Why?

Because it calls into question your darling's behaviour?

Fuck off.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, gotcha.
> 
> Well that's ok then.



There was a second paragraph where I said it was definitely very far from OK. Bowie gets an undeserved free pass, but I don't think it's entirely because of his race.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> This'll be fun. There's probably an interesting conversation to be had about historical cultural norms, patriarchy and modern society, and why this means they are viewed differently...



Interesting article about just that;

'I wouldn’t want this for anybody’s daughter': will #MeToo kill off the rock'n'roll groupie?


----------



## andysays (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why?
> 
> Because it calls into question your darling's behaviour?
> 
> Fuck off.


I think you should start looking for a new career in a new town, mate...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think you should start looking for a new career in a new town, mate...


You're well shit. Go and cut and paste stuff on the Corbyn thread. You're better at that.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Interesting article about just that;
> 
> 'I wouldn’t want this for anybody’s daughter': will #MeToo kill off the rock'n'roll groupie?



Yeah, that is interesting.

I was actually thinking about the general question spy posed at the end of his op rather than the specifics of Bowie, page etc against mj, saville and the like, but this article touches on the general question too.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> There's a lot going on about the freak, Michael Jackson, at the moment.
> 
> At the time, many people of our age stuck him in there with Jimmy Saville .... "yeah ... but ... you know what ...?"
> 
> ...



 Have any of these girls come forward to claim victim hood ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think you should start looking for a new career in a new town, mate...


Spy already works in a new town, harlow


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 8, 2019)

What's happening to pogofish. Once upon a time he'd have been all over this. 
Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Mar 8, 2019)

I watched the documentary about MJ..
And the follow up interviews ... the two men were groomed for years. The abuse went on for years.
I was in tears watching..And I believe them. 
One of these men was 7 when it started
Jackson slept with little kids and dumped them when they were 10 or 11 ...they both say he repeatedly told them that they could never talk about it as they would end up in jail. Their lives were completely fucked with. He groomed their families. Watch the leaving neverland interviews...and watch thd After Neverland interviews. Victims of child abuse who were groomed by people they loved feel extreme guilt and hate for themselves. They blame themselves. 

Bowie ? Seems to have had sex with groupies ...some of whom were underage.... Different and not excusable. But they were not 7 yrs old. 

Watch these and the whole lot. 
Especially the last one. 

AFTER NEVERLAND


----------



## andysays (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Spy already works in a new town, harlow


He'll still have the diamond dogs set on him when editor reads this


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Mar 8, 2019)

Last one. 

Part 6


----------



## souljacker (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bowie = Ok
> Jackson = Paedo
> 
> Let's hope we don't find any inconsistencies in your posting history.



What has my posting history got to do with it you bellend.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Paedophilia is the sexual interest in children, specifically pre- pubescent. Having sex with pubescent, but under 16 year olds isn't paedophilia. In the 60s and 70s it was saucy and risqué in much of society and the media. Whereas in the last 20 years it has changed into a strong taboo. Perhaps because of increasing revelations about actual celebrity paedophiles/rapists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> He'll still have the diamond dogs set on him when editor reads this


yeh cos it should be obvs in music or general


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Paedophilia is the sexual interest in children, specifically pre- pubescent. Having sex with pubescent, but under 16 year olds isn't paedophilia. In the 60s and 70s it was saucy and risqué in much of society and the media. Whereas in the last 20 years it has changed into a strong taboo. Perhaps because of increasing revelations about actual celebrity paedophiles/rapists.


what i like about this sort of thread is the way that wrong uns turn up to out themselves. note no mention of having sex with children (and 15 year aulds are children in the eyes of much of society and the law) being in any wise wrong.


----------



## Reno (Mar 8, 2019)

Is the "books, films, TV, writing and radio" forum now becoming the "spot the paedo" forum ? 

The Michael Jackson thread was justified to be here because it was about a documentary, this isn't.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> what i like about this sort of thread is the way that wrong uns turn up to out themselves. note no mention of having sex with children (and 15 year aulds are children in the eyes of much of society and the law) being in any wise wrong.


Of course it's wrong, why do you need me to tell you that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Of course it's wrong, why do you need me to tell you that?


from what you've told us you don't consider someone 'having sex with'/raping a pubescent 8 or 9 year auld to be paedophilia. why is that? your 'shagging pubescent children isn't paedophilia' is a very curious thing to say and rather ignores the fact that having sex with anyone under the age of consent is pederasty and always non-consensual - as the child cannot legally give consent.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Mar 8, 2019)

I find all this very difficult territory.

On one hand I see the inconsistency of anybody who uses illegal drugs for recreation purposes, or who would happily use violence against fascists, getting all pernickety about the age of consent. Something that can be upped to 17 or reduced to 15 just like that. By MPs.

Furthermore, I cannot see that if I'd been 18 with a 15 year old girlfriend that would have made me a paederast. Except legally (see above).

Perhaps it's something to do with age differences, especially when one person is under 18. Bowie 16 and a girl 14 in 1964 seems different from a much older Bowie and a girl 14.

It's too easy to say that paedophilia is sexual interest in youngsters who haven't developed adult-like bodies. The difficulty is little girls having their periods or growing breasts at 11. And look at photos of Lori Mattix; she may have been a 15yr old groupie but part of her dubious 'appeal' could have been how young-looking she was. This is one of the pictures showing her at her oldest-looking.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





The getting people drunk and plying them with drugs before having sex with them is wrong. I don't see age being relevant to this.

I don't have a well-formed view on this. I'd like to hear more from anybody. As invective- and spittle-free as possible. It could be interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> from what you've told us you don't consider someone 'having sex with'/raping a pubescent 8 or 9 year auld to paedophilia. why is that? your 'shagging pubescent children isn't paedophilia' is a very curious thing to say and rather ignores the fact that having sex with anyone under the age of consent is pederasty and always non-consensual - as the child cannot legally give consent.


Against all good judgment, I was attempting to answer the original question.

There are many terrible, cruel, non-consensual and illegal sexual acts/crimes that are not paedophilia. Saying that these are not strictly paedophilia, doesn't equate to saying they are not either terrible cruel, non consensual or illegal. You either know that, and are being a twat, or you don't understand that... In which case please read the above carefully.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> *On one hand I see the inconsistency of anybody who uses illegal drugs for recreation purposes, or who would happily use violence against fascists, getting all pernickety about the age of consent. Something that can be upped to 17 or reduced to 15 just like that. By MPs.*



This is nonsense. Having sexual relationships with children is abusive and damaging to the child. It's not about illegality, it's not like I should be fine with rape because I smoke a bit of weed. Drug use is mostly harmful to the user themselves, and when the usage itself is harmful to others then the drug use should stop. Violence against fascists is self-defence. Sexual abuse of children is, well, abuse. I wouldn't sleep with a 17 year old for the same reasons I wouldn't sleep with a 15 year old.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> I find all this very difficult territory.
> 
> On one hand I see the inconsistency of anybody who uses illegal drugs for recreation purposes, or who would happily use violence against fascists, getting all pernickety about the age of consent. Something that can be upped to 17 or reduced to 15 just like that. By MPs.
> 
> ...


I don't believe the law states that having sex with someone under the age of consent is paedophilia. The crime is statutory rape. The term paedophilia is a psychological/psychiatric one, and perhaps now a moral and general one (as some posters are showing) not a legal one.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> This is nonsense. Having sexual relationships with children is abusive and damaging to the child. It's not about illegality, it's not like I should be fine with rape because I smoke a bit of weed. Drug use is mostly harmful to the user themselves, and when the usage itself is harmful to others then the drug use should stop. Violence against fascists is self-defence. Sexual abuse of children is, well, abuse. I wouldn't sleep with a 17 year old for the same reasons I wouldn't sleep with a 15 year old.



You haven't understood me at all. I think there is a way of knowing what a child is. It's not what the law says at any given moment.


----------



## marshall (Mar 8, 2019)

No, Bowie wasn't a paedophile. End of.


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Paedophilia is the sexual interest in children, specifically pre- pubescent. Having sex with pubescent, but under 16 year olds isn't paedophilia. In the 60s and 70s it was saucy and risqué in much of society and the media. Whereas in the last 20 years it has changed into a strong taboo. Perhaps because of increasing revelations about actual celebrity paedophiles/rapists.


Yeah this is it really. It really did use to be risqué, and I think- especially by women- seen as gross but you had to put up with it. I mean I remember my Dad in the late 80s when I was like 11 and I first started getting male attention, him telling me that I should be careful never to lead a man on or he might not be able to stop himself [raping me]. I mean my Dad was a cock but I also really think that attitude was just normal in 1988, let alone 1968 or 1978. Older women would AND STILL DO warn younger women about men like this.

So there’s that, adult men trying to fuck (sometimes underage) teenage girls. Then there’s Jackson’s outright paedophilia.

Both involve power distortions, but fucking kids is a lot worse. I don’t know if Bowie fucked kids like Jackson or Savile. I think he was just your average powerful predatory man back then. Urgh.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> You haven't understood me at all. I think there is a way of knowing what a child is. It's not what the law says at any given moment.


And there is clearly a huge cultural/personal /power difference between a 16/17 year old having sex with a 15 year old than a 25 year old having sex with a 13 year old.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Against all good judgment, I was attempting to answer the original question.
> 
> There are many terrible, cruel, non-consensual and illegal sexual acts/crimes that are not paedophilia. Saying that these are not strictly paedophilia, doesn't equate to saying they are not either terrible cruel, non consensual or illegal. You either know that, and are being a twat, or you don't understand that... In which case please read the above carefully.



The problem you've wandered into here is one of the issues of talking about this in general. There are way too many apologists and abusers who try to draw a distinction between adolescent and pre-pubescent to enable themselves to abuse adolescents. They always cry "it's not peadophilia, it's ebephilia" (if I've remembered the second term right), and it's grim. Also used as a wedge issue (along with claims to being part of the LGBT community (claims which are entirely rejected by said community)) by pre-pubescent child abusers.

Stuff like this makes it hard to have a conversation because it's very easy to phrase things loosely, misunderstand or misread things, and the conversation goes to shit without any bad faith arguing involved. I did not read the above into what you said, but pickman's did. The moral if not linguistic meaning of paedophile has expanded over the decades & centuries I think, quite rightly imo, and I think that's what you were saying.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> You haven't understood me at all. I think there is a way of knowing what a child is. It's not what the law says at any given moment.



oh, you mean someone saying 16 is fine cos it's legal, 15 is not cos it's illegal, but they break other laws, is inconsistent? I think those people are just afraid of being caught, they don't actually give a fuck about the law.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> The problem you've wandered into here is one of the issues of talking about this in general. There are way too many apologists and abusers who try to draw a distinction between adolescent and pre-pubescent to enable themselves to abuse adolescents. They always cry "it's not peadophilia, it's ebephilia" (if I've remembered the second term right), and it's grim. Also used as a wedge issue (along with claims to being part of the LGBT community (claims which are entirely rejected by said community)) by pre-pubescent child abusers.
> 
> Stuff like this makes it hard to have a conversation because it's very easy to phrase things loosely, misunderstand or misread things, and the conversation goes to shit without any bad faith arguing involved. I did not read the above into what you said, but pickman's did. The moral if not linguistic meaning of paedophile has expanded over the decades & centuries I think, quite rightly imo, and I think that's what you were saying.


Thanks. 

It's a very interesting and important topic and pretty central to human culture and sexual politics. It's a shame when it can't be discussed.


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> what i like about this sort of thread is the way that wrong uns turn up to out themselves. note no mention of having sex with children (and 15 year aulds are children in the eyes of much of society and the law) being in any wise wrong.


God I just had to unignore this post to make sense of Idaho’s reply and that’s what I see. What the absolute fuck is wrong with you Pickmans. Of course he thinks it’s wrong, this is urban, this is Idaho, why would you even say that? So weird.


----------



## maomao (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ignores the fact that having sex with anyone under the age of consent is pederasty and always non-consensual - as the child cannot legally give consent.


Pederasty very specifically refers to male homosexual adult-child sex.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Edie said:


> God I just had to unignore this post to make sense of Idaho’s reply and that’s what I see. What the absolute fuck is wrong with you Pickmans. Of course he thinks it’s wrong, this is urban, this is Idaho, why would you even say that? So weird.


I occasionally mock him and his p&p dweebs. They get cross and pick fights on unrelated threads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

maomao said:


> Pederasty very specifically refers to male homosexual adult-child sex.


i am grateful for your correction


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> I occasionally mock him and his p&p dweebs. They get cross and pick fights on unrelated threads.


Yeah but implying that you think that kind of abuse is okay is just nasty. He needs to be pulled up on it, cos it’s unpleasant behaviour.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2019)

maomao said:


> Pederasty very specifically refers to male homosexual adult-child sex.


also no one under the age of 13 can give consent, not 16.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It's a very interesting and important topic and pretty central to human culture and sexual politics. It's a shame when it can't be discussed.



It's just difficult to do, even if we assume there are no abusers or apologists here (and whilst it's not so likely on Urban, we have had open paedophiles in the past, I don't want to name names because I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to malign innocents but I know others will remember for sure).
When I started reading your post I was expecting something else. For me, that you didn't mention ebephiles was why I did not consider apologism in the post, had you mentioned that I would have gone the same way as pickman's. I totally see why he went that way. It's hard to talk about this topic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Edie said:


> Yeah but implying that you think that kind of abuse is okay is just nasty. He needs to be pulled up on it, cos it’s unpleasant behaviour.


i won't take lectures from you on unpleasant behaviour after the number of times you've posted up a load of auld right wing shit


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> oh, you mean someone saying 16 is fine cos it's legal, 15 is not cos it's illegal, but they break other laws, is inconsistent? I think those people are just afraid of being caught, they don't actually give a fuck about the law.



That partly, but also that it's odd to see dope-smokers and other law-breakers clutching their metaphorical pearls about sex at 15 and 11 months but not feeling able to about 16 and 1 day 'because it's the law'. Why the exaggerated respect for this law but not others? I get it that there are victims involved, but they are victims at 17 or more too.

I think the way forward may be 

Statutory rape - Wikipedia

On the face of it it's absurd that in Spain two 15 yr olds can both be accused of statutory rape. But you never know if one was pressurising the other somehow.


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

I think a much more uncomfortable question, rather than ‘was Bowie a paedophile?’ is thinking that his kind of predatory behaviour towards teenage girls was totally normal in the 70s. Accepted. Slightly frowned upon but generally indulged. The more difficult question to think about is what other male behaviour from then, or _now_, are we gonna look back at and think ‘I can’t believe that was just seen as okay’.

Happy International Women’s Day btw


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> It's just difficult to do, even if we assume there are no abusers or apologists here (and whilst it's not so likely on Urban, we have had open paedophiles in the past, I don't want to name names because I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to malign innocents but I know others will remember for sure).
> When I started reading your post I was expecting something else. For me, that you didn't mention ebephiles was why I did not consider apologism in the post, had you mentioned that I would have gone the same way as pickman's. I totally see why he went that way. It's hard to talk about this topic.


I've never heard of "ebephile" and I dont want to Google it! So this is a way of people with "edgey" sexual preferences to discriminate themselves from paedophiles?

It is difficult to discuss. There was a case a few years back where someone was convicted of looking at underage porn - young teenagers. However he was 13 years old himself. He ended up being put on a sex offenders register.

Now there are all kinds of reasons that this kind of porn should be illegal and actively combated (it's documented rape and abuse) but setting aside that elephant for discussions sake... that individual boy was not a paedophile and in my opinion was treated unfairly. He had a fairly normal interest in seeing naked girls his own age. Yes some legal intervention was appropriate - but being put on a register was harsh. 

Now what age would he need to be for me to take a different view? Such a tough question. The easy answer and the safe one that would prevent people like Pickmans calling you a paedophile is to parrot the law and not discuss at all.


----------



## tim (Mar 8, 2019)

marshall said:


> No, Bowie wasn't a paedophile. End of.



What term would you use to describe someone who has sex with girls under the age of sixteen? And how do you feel about him employing Max Clifford as his pimp?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> The easy answer and the safe one that would prevent people like Pickmans calling you a paedophile is to parrot the law and not discuss at all.


i didn't call you a paedophile, i called you a wrong un. you trotted out the auld 'things were different' then line. bollocks. at that point the age of consent had been in place for something like 85 years, it was by no means a new thing. and you came out with this very peculiar 'it's not paedophilia if they're pubescent'. i have not the slightest suspicion you're a paedophile or a hebephile - i do not believe in the slightest you have any attraction to people of school age. but i think you're a wrong un, someone with some unusual notions.


----------



## Reno (Mar 8, 2019)

This was always going to go well, wasn’t it !


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't call you a paedophile, i called you a wrong un. you trotted out the auld 'things were different' then line. bollocks. at that point the age of consent had been in place for something like 85 years, it was by no means a new thing. and you came out with this very peculiar 'it's not paedophilia if they're pubescent'. i have not the slightest suspicion you're a paedophile or a hebephile - i do not believe in the slightest you have any attraction to people of school age. but i think you're a wrong un, someone with some unusual notions.


Really? You don't think social and sexual norms have changed over the last 40 years? You think the whole matter was set to rights 85 years ago and its been smooth running ever since?


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't call you a paedophile, i called you a wrong un. you trotted out the auld 'things were different' then line. bollocks. at that point the age of consent had been in place for something like 85 years, it was by no means a new thing. and you came out with this very peculiar 'it's not paedophilia if they're pubescent'. i have not the slightest suspicion you're a paedophile or a hebephile - i do not believe in the slightest you have any attraction to people of school age. but i think you're a wrong un, someone with some unusual notions.


Fuck off you back peddeler. You implied he thought sex with underage women was okay. When from years of posting with him, hundreds of interactions, you know he doesn’t, and that isn’t what he thinks. It was just a nasty thing to do, and like Idaho says it slams debate closed.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Reno said:


> This was always going to go well wasn’t it !


His priorities on urban are not the same as most people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Edie said:


> Fuck off you back peddeler. You implied he thought sex with underage women was okay. When from years of posting with him, hundreds of interactions, you know he doesn’t, and that isn’t what he thinks. It was just a nasty thing to do, and like Idaho says it slams debate closed.


you obviously missed his 'the 1970s were a different time and in the last 20 years it's become something of taboo'.

you like to hand it out but you can't take it, like when you had a pop at Sea Star here https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/goodbye-urban.98498/page-6 for flouncing then returning. but when i pointed out you'd done just the same for fifteen years, that was it


----------



## co-op (Mar 8, 2019)

Edie said:


> Fuck off you back peddeler. You implied he thought sex with underage women was okay. When from years of posting with him, hundreds of interactions, you know he doesn’t, and that isn’t what he thinks. It was just a nasty thing to do, and like Idaho says it slams debate closed.



He's a needy, attention-seeking dick, I think the best option is ignore because otherwise everything ends up about him.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

Edie said:


> Fuck off you back peddeler. You implied he thought sex with underage women was okay. When from years of posting with him, hundreds of interactions, you know he doesn’t, and that isn’t what he thinks. It was just a nasty thing to do, and like Idaho says it slams debate closed.


Thanks for your faith and kind words - but don't get into a scrap with him on my account. It'll just get your blood pressure up and he isn't capable of changing the perfection of his existing beliefs


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> I've never heard of "ebephile" and I dont want to Google it! So this is a way of people with "edgey" sexual preferences to discriminate themselves from paedophiles?
> 
> It is difficult to discuss. There was a case a few years back where someone was convicted of looking at underage porn - young teenagers. However he was 13 years old himself. He ended up being put on a sex offenders register.
> 
> ...



I've got two terms for sexual attraction to adolescents mixed up:

Ephebophilia - Wikipedia



> In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, _ephebophilia_ to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents,[1] _hebephilia_ to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescentindividuals, and _pedophilia_ to refer to the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children.[1][2] However, the term _pedophilia_ is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development.[3]



mid-to-late is described on wikipedia as 15-19 year old, and it's used by people who want to fuck 15 year olds to claim they are not paedophiles and therefore not in the same moral category as them. Hebephilia by those who want to fuck 13 year olds ("Juliet was 12 so it's clearly fine, it's not paedophilia, it's hebephilia"). Outside of academia ime you will only find these terms used by paedophiles (in the broader, more usual sense) and their apologists.

istr some case from the US where a 13 or 14 year old girl was charged with distributing child porn for sending a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend. I dunno what happened or if it was actually real, might turn out to be a tabloid made up story or a discussion about issues about a proposed law and something that could happen in theory but not an actual event. In any case it's hard to write laws to protect adolescents against predatory adults, whilst still allowing them to explore relationships at their own pace, whilst still protecting adolescents from being pressured into moving too quickly in relationships with other adolescents. Hard to do in a social sense as well but at least there you can use the "I know it when I see it" reasoning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

the divide idaho insists on really rather unusual


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

co-op said:


> He's a needy, attention-seeking dick, I think the best option is ignore because otherwise everything ends up about him.


you're quite happy to chuck around allegations yourself, like when you claimed i posted some anti-semitic shit. but you're less willing to come out and prove your accusation. perhaps because it's a load of auld toss.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you obviously missed his 'the 1970s were a different time and in the last 20 years it's become something of taboo'.



Yeah, but as far as I read what he was saying, his point wasn't "so that's ok then" but more like, "if you want to see the reason why they are treated differently, it's (partly/something) to do with the idea that at the time of Bowie having sex with teenagers, it was not seen as taboo to the same extent it is now, whereas having sex with pre-pubescent children was absolutely taboo when MJ was doing it and this leads to a different view of their actions, even 40 years later"

I was born in 1979 so I dunno how taboo this stuff was in the 1970s, but I don't think Idaho was saying it in the way I think you think he is.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Is it OK to say that some paedoing is worse than others? 

It probably is, right?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> Is it OK to say that some paedoing is worse than others?
> 
> It probably is, right?



Well, obviously not.  
Otherwise the law would get a bit messy, and you couldn't have our nice simple "Paedoing" charge with a fixed sentence for all crimes.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

I love how these discussions always descend into a dull debate on the legal definition of paedophilia.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, obviously not.
> Otherwise the law would get a bit messy, and you couldn't have our nice simple "Paedoing" charge with a fixed sentence for all crimes.


I'm not interested in the law. More what people think


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> I'm not interested in the law. More what people think



People are pretty solidly on side with the law here, judging by most of the posts on the matter.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> Is it OK to say that some paedoing is worse than others?
> 
> It probably is, right?


Is having a collection of paedo anime less bad than sexually assaulting children? 

Careful, if you say yes, Pickman's will say you are a paedo apologist.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

8ball said:


> People are pretty solidly on side with the law here, judging by most of the posts on the matter.


Really? It have said people think that having sex with a 10 year old is a lot worse than a 15 year old. Or even 17 year old in some parts of the world.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Is having a collection of paedo anime less bad than sexually assaulting children?
> 
> Careful, if you say yes, Pickman's will say you are a paedo apologist.


Of course it is. But that doesn't make the first option not bad.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> Is it OK to say that some paedoing is worse than others?
> 
> It probably is, right?



I'm sure it gets said in court all the time.

"Your honor, my client doesn't look too bad - when you compare him to some other paedophiles."


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> Really? It have said people think that having sex with a 10 year old is a lot worse than a 15 year old. Or even 17 year old in some parts of the world.



Maybe a series of graphs would be appropriate at this stage.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

Iggy Pop (current avuncular old patriarch of BBC Radio 6) and Sable Starr (aged 14 and three quarters)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 8, 2019)

It's a cliche, but the 70s really _were_ different.  I was 14 in 1975 and remember distinctly friends of my dad being all "nudge nudge, wink wink" in their comments to me and my sister.  This would happen in front of my parents, and it wasn't considered offensive.  In fact, we were expected to be flattered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> I love how these discussions always descend into a dull debate on the legal definition of paedophilia.


i don't think there is a legal definition of paedophilia but a list of acts which taken together are generally considered paedophilia. so sorry to disappoint.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

8ball said:


> Maybe a series of graphs would be appropriate at this stage.


There is a difference between Bowie having sex with a 15 year old and Jackson having sex with a 7 year old. Surely. 

If through some magic I was a judge handing out the punishments for such crimes, I'd not be giving them an equal time in the stocks.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Mar 8, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's a cliche, but the 70s really _were_ different.  I was 14 in 1975 and remember distinctly friends of my dad being all "nudge nudge, wink wink" in their comments to me and my sister.  This would happen in front of my parents, and it wasn't considered offensive.  In fact, we were expected to be flattered.


Ugh


----------



## ska invita (Mar 8, 2019)

Paedophilia is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. So no, Bowie wasnt a paedophile.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Paedophilia is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. So no, Bowie wasnt a paedophile.


And a peanut is not actually a nut. 
But lets not be paedants


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Paedophilia is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. So no, Bowie wasnt a paedophile.


the difference between various -philes explored upthread


----------



## Idaho (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> And a peanut is not actually a nut.
> But lets not be paedants


I suggest we start from pedantry/semantics, clearing it up as boring detail - then continue the discussion into more interesting areas. You have said that you see Bowie and a 14 year old as a different thing to Jackson and a 7 year old - why is that?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> There is a difference between Bowie having sex with a 15 year old and Jackson having sex with a 7 year old. Surely.



But how much?  And how much does it vary with respect to age of both partners?
That's why we need graphs!


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> I've got two terms for sexual attraction to adolescents mixed up:
> 
> Ephebophilia - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



Well I would much rather we were more precise and nuanced than lump everything in together. We are usually against oversimplification and lack of nuance on here, surely.  It's not about being an apologist, regardless of whether apologists also use those terms.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the difference between various -philes explored upthread


Don't expect me to read this shit reheated troll thread


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 8, 2019)

andysays said:


> Always crashing in the same car, eh Spymaster...



Liked because as I started reading this I was listing to Phillipe Jaroussky’s version of this from the Proms.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Idaho said:


> I suggest we start from pedantry/semantics, clearing it up as boring detail - then continue the discussion into more interesting areas. You have said that you see Bowie and a 14 year old as a different thing to Jackson and a 7 year old - why is that?


I said 15, not 14. But whatever. 

15 is considered a legal age of consent in a lot of the world, including europe. Due to obvious reasons like physical and mental maturity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Don't expect me to read this shit reheated troll thread


long story short: the differing ages at which puberty occurs make the prepubescent distinction problematic. in common parlance 'paedophiles' are adults who engage sexually with children regardless of the child's physical or emotional/mental development - which in essence boils down to under 16. different views are taken of e.g. a 16 year auld and a 14 year auld to that of a 20 year auld and a 14 year auld with the former seen as more socially acceptable than the latter. while the strict definition is as you say the wo/man on the street will be less precise if asked.


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's a cliche, but the 70s really _were_ different.  I was 14 in 1975 and remember distinctly friends of my dad being all "nudge nudge, wink wink" in their comments to me and my sister.  This would happen in front of my parents, and it wasn't considered offensive.  In fact, we were expected to be flattered.


yeah I can totally imagine that. Thank god that’s changed (on the surface at least, you don’t have to scratch very deep to find it tho, just look at the first pages of porn sites).


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 8, 2019)

I am sure the cases of statutory rape of teenage girls will number thousands of cases involving musicians, actors and celebrities. Especially in the seventies. This is what happens when people get stuck on a pedestal and believe they can do what the fuck they want. No excuses. 
Some even have the audacity to flaunt their behaviour.
Bill Wyman for example.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

They all flaunted it, and we made them millionaires for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> They all flaunted it, and we made them millionaires for it.


so many of them sang about it, as we've discussed on numerous threads


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

everyone else is so probably


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Virtually impossible to discuss this subject on here. Someone will come along and deliberately assume bad faith in anything you say, impugning your motives. Some posters only really exist on here in order to act like that.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 8, 2019)

quimcunx said:


> Well I would much rather we were more precise and nuanced than lump everything in together. We are usually against oversimplification and lack of nuance on here, surely.  It's not about being an apologist, regardless of whether apologists also use those terms.



Its a a weird approach isn't it? The 'public' lump it all together so lets just stick with that.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Virtually impossible to discuss this subject on here. Someone will come along and deliberately assume bad faith in anything you say, impugning your motives. Some posters only really exist on here in order to act like that.



Exactly what I'd expect a wrong 'un to say...


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

I'm going to expand on that jab above.

''They'' (to name any would be to overlook many) were in large part feted, lauded, _worshipped _because they broke taboos and flouted societal norms, sex with underage groupies (as well as looked at the other way, underage girls and boys seeking out sex with adults) cannot be separated from that. _All _the transgressive behaviour has to be considered because it's all about why we made stars of these people .. rather than say just_ liking the music they made_, which by itself doesn't imply that thing we call ''stardom''.

We _still _celebrate people who break taboos and flout societal norms, you can still become a ''star'' that way. It's just that this particular taboo is no longer one that is allowed to be broken. Actually i think it probably is, but probably only for ''religious'' reasons nowadays, it certainly won't help get you stardom. But who knows.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 8, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> ...it's just that this particular taboo is no longer one that is allowed to be broken. Actually i think it probably is, but probably only for ''religious'' reasons nowadays...


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

To name any would be to neglect many. But kids (mainly girls) are still made to marry adults in religious ceremonies. Those ceremonies are presumably attended by friends and family. That suggests to me there are circumstances where underage sex isn't entirely frowned upon.


----------



## IC3D (Mar 8, 2019)

If I was 13 in a toss up between Michael Jackson and David Bowie I'd go for the latter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Some of the taboos/norms 'they' were breaking haven't survived, mind. If a man came forward and says Bowie had sex with him in the 70s when he was 18, nobody would be condemning him for that, yet that was very much a criminal offence at the time, a very serious one. If his ex-wife came forward and said that Bowie had forced himself on her (raped her), we would be condemning him for it, even though _that_ was totally legal at the time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> I'm sure it gets said in court all the time.
> 
> "Your honor, my client doesn't look too bad - when you compare him to some other paedophiles."


The Catholic Church seem to think so. One of Cardinal Pell's colleagues tried to mitigate his crimes (raping children) by saying it was just vanilla sexual penetration


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> I'm sure it gets said in court all the time.
> 
> "Your honor, my client doesn't look too bad - when you compare him to some other paedophiles."


In the recent case againt the nonce priest, Cardinal Pell, in Australia the defence barrister described his offence as "just a vanilla case of penetrating a child who was not consenting".

If we are to accept what the law says, that's exactly what David Bowie did. Many times.

Pretty vanilla eh?

No big deal because things were different back then ? Fuck off. I was alive "back then". Most of Bowie's victims would be about my age now.

Men who fucked girls when I was a kid got the shit kicked out of them. Bowie got away with it because he made decent music and he was white. Not sure why Bill Wyman didn't get a kicking.


----------



## Thora (Mar 8, 2019)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think there is a difference in the behaviour of MJ and Bowie. 

Bowie's behaviour was totally wrong (even in the 70s it wasn't totally acceptable to give 14 year old's drink/drugs and have sex with them) but a child of 14/15/16 has a capacity to consent in a way a child of 7/8/9 doesn't.
Bowie didn't, as far as I know, groom children and their families, encourage emotional and financial reliance, swear them to silence and threaten them. 

To be honest I think comparing fucking a 7 year old who you basically have in your possession, is totally reliant on you for basic survival and is thousands of miles away from home and their parents to Bowie and Lori Mattix is ridiculous. But I still think Bowie and John Peel and Elvis and Bill Wyman and all the rest of them are disgusting.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 8, 2019)

That was one of the most fucked-up arguments I've ever heard: "Yeah, maybe he molested some choirboys but it wasn't anything kinky."


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bowie got away with it because he made decent music and he was white.



Loads of people got away with it because they made decent music, films, books, art, sports. James Brown got away with it and he wasn't even white.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Also, Michael Jackson got away with far, far worse, imo a whole different category of wrongness. Being rich and famous is more of a factor than race, I would think.

Anyway, for someone who wasn't going to post, I appear to be posting.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's a cliche, but the 70s really _were_ different.  I was 14 in 1975 and remember distinctly friends of my dad being all "nudge nudge, wink wink" in their comments to me and my sister.  This would happen in front of my parents, and it wasn't considered offensive.  In fact, we were expected to be flattered.


They were still massive wronguns, Liz. One of my close friends used to get fucked by her father in the 70s and has said pretty much the same about it to me. "That kind of thing did go on back then".


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some of the taboos/norms 'they' were breaking haven't survived, mind. If a man came forward and says Bowie had sex with him in the 70s when he was 18, nobody would be condemning him for that, yet that was very much a criminal offence at the time, a very serious one. If his ex-wife came forward and said that Bowie had forced himself on her (raped her), we would be condemning him for it, even though _that_ was totally legal at the time.



Yes.  Interesting how the law and peoples' attitudes have changed.


----------



## tim (Mar 8, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> I'm not interested in the law. More what people think


Not in what is moral?


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If we are to accept what the law says, that's exactly what David Bowie did. Many times.


Did he? The reports I have seen refer to two girls, both aged over 13 and thus able to give consent. And neither of whom have said they now feel he abused them.  

Which still isn't right, obviously, but it isn't what you said.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 8, 2019)

tim said:


> Not in what is moral?



in what way is morality not _formed_ by what people think?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 8, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> The Catholic Church seem to think so. One of Cardinal Pell's colleagues tried to mitigate his crimes (raping children) by saying it was just vanilla sexual penetration


It was his defence lawyer rather than a colleague - not that that invalidates your point but best to be accurate on these things.


----------



## Fez909 (Mar 8, 2019)

BigTom said:


> In any case it's hard to write laws to protect adolescents against predatory adults, whilst still allowing them to explore relationships at their own pace, whilst still protecting adolescents from being pressured into moving too quickly in relationships with other adolescents. Hard to do in a social sense as well but at least there you can use the "I know it when I see it" reasoning.


I don't agree. Other countries have "Romeo & Juliet" laws that seem to me to be the obvious 'solution' to the arbitrary AoC laws we have.

Set a lower bound where all sex is illegal. Presumably this would be similar to the criminal responsibility age.
Then the law is within "x number of years" of the younger person. 
Then the person is an adult, so can fuck who they like.

In the above instance, a 14yo and a 15yo having sex would probably not be illegal. But they still can't 'consent' properly, to avoid adults taking advantage with the power imbalances.

Make all other sexual offences like indecent imagery etc match the R&J laws - so the same 14yo and 15yo sending pics to each other would not get them on the register, etc.

Anything outside of that gets dealt with like we deal with paedos now.

This is how they do it in Europe, I believe. In France and Italy they have a lower AoC then here, but that doesn't mean a 50yo bloke can fuck 14yo girls. It's something like 2 or 3 years older, otherwise it's treated as abuse/rape/whatever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> They were still massive wronguns, Liz. One of my close friends used to get fucked by her father in the 70s and has said pretty much the same about it to me. "That kind of thing did go on back then".


bet it still does


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Did he? The reports I have seen refer to two girls, both aged over 13 and thus able to give consent.


Bit of a hair split but ok. Bowie was guilty of sexual activity with a child, if not rape. Of course, these are just the cases that we know of.

Roman Polanski did the same and had to flee America, never to openly return. David Bowie did it and got a mural painted of him in Brixton (I've pissed on that, btw) and an RIP thread on Urban75 as long as a donkey's cock.


----------



## campanula (Mar 8, 2019)

My father-in law (dead now - and not missed) never had a relationship with an adult woman (I am actually older than my stepmother-in law!). It was a power thing - he always surrounded himself with much younger people of any gender as he liked nothing better than to act the sagely patriarch (although he was a grade 1 cunt). It fuelled his narcissism, to chat shit to a bunch of naive adolescents who never challenged his superiority.
I saw him more as a predatory, manipulative coward who also had some very unsavoury ideas about childcare, including several made-up 'games' (O Jehosophat) which involved getting his children to basically beat the shit out of each other. A despicable man.

I confess that my previous enjoyment of certain bands/performers/artists is definitely affected by their personal behaviour. I know many would consider this no loss whatsoever, but I have been unable to listen to Roy Harper (Stormcock was the soundtrack to my teenage years) since re-evaluating him as (yet another) weak man with a need to dominate (13  year olds)...while the likes of Bowie, the Stones and yep, a whole host of artistic icons are diminished (in my eyes) since music was never just about harmony and rhythm but was tied in to emotions, aspirations and a sort of yearning which becomes despoiled when men are seen to have such feet of clay...although my sense of betrayal is always much sharper when I had harboured an affection in the first place.

eta - my response is entirely personal, with no reference to legalities, semantics and certainly not other people's enjoyment (or otherwise) of such flawed people...because ultimately, it is the same emotional, often irrational power which drives our adulation...but also brings these figures down when we feel a little bit...soiled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bit of a hair split but ok. Bowie was guilty of sexual activity with a child, if not rape. Of course, these are just the cases that we know of.
> 
> Roman Polanski did the same and had to flee America, never to openly return. David Bowie did it and got a mural painted of him in Brixton (I've pissed on that, btw) and an RIP thread on Urban75 as long as a donkey's cock.


longer, indeed


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Men who fucked girls when I was a kid got the shit kicked out of them


I think we're around similar ages & I also remember loads of girls in (the equivalent to) Years 7/8/9 (ages c13/14/15) who had boyfriends way older - late teens/early 20s at least.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


>


She was 14 in that picture but it's OK though, she wasn't a virgin or anything. Bowie and his wife had abused her the year before. When she was 13.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> I think we're around similar ages & I also remember loads of girls in (the equivalent to) Years 7/8/9 (ages c13/14/15) who had boyfriends way older - late teens/early 20s at least.


I do remember that, although it wasn't commonplace, and blokes with young girlfriends were derided as "cradle-snatchers". Every single one of them that I'm aware of, also went out of their way to point out that they didn't have sex with those kids "until their 16th birthday". 

Still grubby as fuck.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

people here love bowie so it must cut deep when yer idol turns out to be a posthumous paed.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

TBF people have been looking past Bowie's noncery since long before he died.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 8, 2019)

''Iggy Confidential'' though. Still a massive star with tons of cred to dish out, or so it seems. Nobody seems to care about the bad old days, _they were the bad old days, things were different, let's not talk about it. _Let's just enjoy other stories from those days and forget the dodge stuff and give him a radio show.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Paedophilia is sexual attraction to *prepubescent* children. So no, Bowie wasnt a paedophile.


What's your view on him screwing children though?


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> although it wasn't commonplace


Girls from my school and your school and probably every school around the country _make_ it commonplace I'd say. I think it points towards a different attitude generally.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> Girls from my school and your school and probably every school around the country _make_ it commonplace I'd say. I think it points towards a different attitude generally.


I disagree, tbh. It did happen but not much, ime. When it did the blokes were ridiculed. Perhaps it was different in your manor. Also, the power dynamic that Bowie had over the kids he sexually abused was absent in the cases you mention.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Mar 8, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> She was 14 in that picture but it's OK though, she wasn't a virgin or anything. Bowie and his wife had abused her the year before. When she was 13.



That was one of the less nasty photos of her around that age. I wasn't  going to post one of her in halternecks or 'sexy' poses.  It may be hindsight but she didnt look 'old enough' for that to be any kind of excuse.


----------



## Sweet FA (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree, tbh. It did happen but not much, ime. When it did the blokes were ridiculed. Perhaps it was different in your manor.


Maybe. Whether the blokes were ridiculed or not though, it still happened (& they weren't all getting the shit kicked out of them). Does this still happen now? 13/14/15 yo's being picked up from school by blokes 17-20? (Maybe I'd best ask this 13 yo girl I know )




Spymaster said:


> Also, the power dynamic that Bowie had over the kids he sexually abused was absent in the cases you mention.


 Was it? Bloke with a Maze tape, a wedge and a Capri using rides in his motor & vodka and orange vs Bowie using his roller and a bag of coke?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> Maybe. Whether the blokes were ridiculed or not though, it still happened (& they weren't all getting the shit kicked out of them). Does this still happen now? 13/14/15 yo's being picked up from school by blokes 17-20? (Maybe I'd best ask this 13 yo girl I know )


I don't know. Back in the day, the cases that I was aware of usually involved 5th or 6th year girls going out with 18/19 year olds.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

When I was in high school aged 14/15 it was totally commonplace for girls to have much older boyfriends. I've no idea what the boyfriend's peers thought of them though.

I imagine it's still fairly commonplace now tbf, if perhaps less open.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Mar 8, 2019)

First year university students with girlfriends still at school was a thing. Not ones they'd had from school but ones they had perhaps impressed after going to uni. Is it still?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Most 14/15 year old girls aren't interested in 14/15 year old boys, though, are they? They have matured earlier than the boys so they want someone older.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> First year university students with girlfriends still at school was a thing. Not ones they'd had from school but ones they had perhaps impressed after going to uni. Is it still?


Don't know but we had several lecturers at uni who were known to shag students. Those girls were all 18+ but the lecturers were still considered to be scumbags by most people.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> I've no idea what the boyfriend's peers thought of them though.


Actually, I just remembered a girl I was friends with when I was 16 or 17 who was 13 at the time, and who had a 19 year old boyfriend. No-one seemed to care too much. It was often mentioned how old she seemed for her years, but not that he was a nonce.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> Actually, I just remembered a girl I was friends with when I was 16 or 17 who was 13 at the time, and who had a 19 year old boyfriend. No-one seemed to care too much. It was often mentioned how old she seemed for her years, but not that he was a nonce.


When I was about 21, I knew a couple who had started going out when he was about 19 and she was about 13/14. They were still together around four years later. Similar thing: the age thing was commented on, but they were fully accepted within the social circle. A raised eyebrow, nothing more.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> Actually, I just remembered a girl I was friends with when I was 16 or 17 who was 13 at the time, and who had a 19 year old boyfriend. No-one seemed to care too much. It was often mentioned how old she seemed for her years, but not that he was a nonce.


He would have been considered a total fucking nonce round my way and I think I'm older than you. Did the girl's parents know?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

when i was 20 i went to a new years eve party in kentish town, and someone i know - who was 19 or 20 - went off with someone who turned out to be 13. there was rather more than a raised eyebrow, he was roundly mocked for months.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> He would have been considered a total fucking nonce round my way and I think I'm older than you. Did the girl's parents know?


I think so, yeah. They used to come and pick her up in the morning after raves too.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When I was about 21, I knew a couple who had started going out when he was about 19 and she was about 13/14. They were still together around four years later. Similar thing: the age thing was commented on, but they were fully accepted within the social circle. A raised eyebrow, nothing more.


19 year olds banging 13 year olds is well fucking dodgy. I knew of a bloke who was 18 going out with a 15 year old who 'waited until she was 16' before shagging her. That would've been around about 1983 and it did more than raise a few eyebrows.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when i was 20 i went to a new years eve party in kentish town, and someone i know - who was 19 or 20 - went off with someone who turned out to be 13. there was rather more than a raised eyebrow, he was roundly mocked for months.


Indeed. That was never acceptable (at least not in my lifetime in the UK).


----------



## maomao (Mar 8, 2019)

I had a fifteen year old friend with a thirty year old boyfriend and we all thought it was funny but no-one thought it was wrong. 

And knowing her quite well it's unlikely that he was weilding any sort of power over her.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> 19 year olds banging 13 year olds is well fucking dodgy. I knew of a bloke who was 18 going out with a 15 year old who 'waited until she was 16' before shagging her. That would've been around about 1983 and it did more than raise a few eyebrows.


Don't know when they started shagging, but by the time I knew them it really wasn't anything more than a raised eyebrow. It was something that was spoken about, but not outright condemned.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't know when they started shagging, but by the time I knew them it really wasn't anything more than a raised eyebrow. It was something that was spoken about, but not outright condemned.


something that was still being spoken about, four years later

right


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. That was never acceptable (at least not in my lifetime in the UK).


There's people on the thread posting about their memories within your lifetime in the UK where it was (sort of) acceptable though. At least ignored, or briefly smirked about.


----------



## maomao (Mar 8, 2019)

And while they've never really been in my repertoire 'old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' and 'if there's grass on the pitch...' were certainly well worn clichés when I was growing up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's people on the thread posting about their memories within your lifetime in the UK where it was (sort of) acceptable though. At least ignored, or briefly smirked about.


My sister went out with a series of men in their 20s when she was between about 15-18. She wasn't interested in boys her age. I don't remember any major kerfuffle about it. More than one of them came to the house.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

killer b said:


> There's people on the thread posting about their memories within your lifetime in the UK where it was (sort of) acceptable though. At least ignored, or briefly smirked about.


Yes, I know it happened here and there but I genuinely reckon these are exceptions. Of course we'll now have a slew of posters making up anecdotes about large age gaps between blokes and underage girls but it really was not common as far as I remember and I grew up in a very average part of the country.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2019)

I'm sure we can all think of individual cases where there was a massive age gap that is dodgy as fuck, but that didn't lead to any explicit harm

Woman I know was 16 when she started seeing her fella, who was about 36 (the joke, apparently was, 'why did he pick up a 16 year old? He couldnt get one any younger').  They're still together thirty-five years later.

I think Julian Cope's wife of thirty years was 15 when he met her (he would have been mid-20's).  I know someone who regularly shagged a fairly famous musician when he visited her town, and she was 14 (when it started). She now says it was a great time,

Almost as if, people are individuals, and the idea that such relationships are simply abusive doesn't really hold up.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

maomao said:


> And while they've never really been in my repertoire 'old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' and 'if there's grass on the pitch...' were certainly well worn clichés when I was growing up.


They still are amongst shitbags.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, I know it happened here and there but I genuinely reckon these are exceptions. Of course we'll now have a slew of posters making up anecdotes about large age gaps between blokes and underage girls but it really was not common as far as I remember and I grew up in a very average part of the country.


I don't have much beyond a couple of cases I knew of. I was an awkward virgin in my teens and didn't really know girls much at all. But we did this once before on Urban. There are quite a few female posters on here who had relationships with older men (as in at least five or six years older) when they were 14-15. It really wasn't uncommon. I remember being a little surprised by just how common an experience it seemed to be.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, I know it happened here and there but I genuinely reckon these are exceptions. Of course we'll now have a slew of posters making up anecdotes about large age gaps between blokes and underage girls but it really was not common as far as I remember and I grew up in a very average part of the country.


How come your anecdotal experience takes precedent over ours?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

belboid said:


> Almost as if, people are individuals, and the idea that such relationships are simply abusive doesn't really hold up.


Do you think David Bowie was a child abuser? Your earlier defence of him pointed out, obliquely, that he was (probably) not a child rapist (although as far as I can remember he could have been guilty of statutory rape at the time). What do you think about him fucking 14 year olds when he was in his 20s?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Do you think David Bowie was a child abuser? Your earlier defence of him pointed out, obliquely, that he was not a rapist (although as far as I can remember he could have been guilty of statutory rape at the time). What do you think about him fucking 14 year olds when he was in his 20s?


tbh there wasn't much of a relationship there, not in the terms which belboid's describing where people have ended up as long-term if not life partners.


----------



## mod (Mar 8, 2019)

Which member of The Who shagged the most groupies?

Roger Adultery.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 8, 2019)

Don't you remember all the "wild child" tabloid stories in the 80s?  They focused on teenage girls, usually around 13 to 16, who were hanging around in clubs with much older men.  The men weren't criticised - the girls were!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 8, 2019)

You couldn't walk out of my school gates in the 80s without tripping over older guys in their cars or on their motorbikes who had come to pick up their girlfriends from school.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Mar 8, 2019)

...and if you look at any of the youth culture scenes in the uk there have always been underage girls involved who became rich pickings for the older 'faces' on the scene.

The Mod scene has always been like that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't you remember all the "wild child" tabloid stories in the 80s?  They focused on teenage girls, usually around 13 to 16, who were hanging around in clubs with much older men.  The men weren't criticised - the girls were!


I was only a kid myself at the time so didn't really understand much, but Bill Wyman went on talk shows with Mandy Smith. I remember there a little bit of unease at the time about it, but not enough to, well, not invite him on for a friendly Wogan-like chat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

mod said:


> Which member of The Who shagged the most groupies?
> 
> Roger Adultery.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Do you think David Bowie was a child abuser? Your earlier defence of him pointed out, obliquely, that he was (probably) not a child rapist (although as far as I can remember he could have been guilty of statutory rape at the time). What do you think about him fucking 14 year olds when he was in his 20s?


My 'defence' of him is simply trying to say that facts should be quoted accurately. I think his behaviour undoubtedly amounted to child sexual exploitation, I'm not sure about it being 'abuse' because the women (as they are now) do not describe it as such. They are the ones best placed to make that judgement, not some fellas on the internet forty years later. 

Rodney Bingenheimer, on the other hand, did abuse her and the other 'baby groupies'


----------



## mod (Mar 8, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


>



That is actually one of my own! 

How all is well, mate


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was only a kid myself at the time so didn't really understand much, but Bill Wyman went on talk shows with Mandy Smith. I remember there a little bit of unease at the time about it, but not enough to, well, not invite him on for a friendly Wogan-like chat.


I think that was one of the cases that really brought about the shift in attitudes. It was quite shocking, and especially seeing them next to each other on Wogan, where he looks so much older than he was and she still looked about 14 (tho she was 16 or 17 when they went on the show)


----------



## JimW (Mar 8, 2019)

Was it Jerry Lee lewis supposedly got a pram thrown on stage during a UK tour as he'd just married his 13-year-old cousin? Sure it came up in a biopic but might have the wrong rock and roller.
ETA via Wikipedia: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jerry-lee-lewis-drops-a-bombshell-in-london


----------



## maomao (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> They still are amongst shitbags.


Really? I know some proper fucking scumbags and either of those phrases would drop jaws these days.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 8, 2019)

when i was in the last couple of years at school - 14/15/16 at the end of the 80's and into the nineties - few of the very desirable girls in my year were going out with boys of their own age, they were going out with boys at least 4 years older than them. by 15/16 they were going to gigs and parties in Bristol, Cheltenham, and Gloucester that 15 and 16 yo boys from small towns on the edge of the Cotswolds simply weren't invited to.

the local car-park wonders were popular with the girls who didn't get invited to parties and gigs in Bristol or wherever - shitty Nova's doing doughnuts in the supermarket carparks on a friday night - they'd all be 18/19/20-odd, and some quite a bit older, well into mid-20's, and probably lacking in the _cultural capital _to have relationships with women more their own age. those blokes were looked upon as sad fucks by pretty much everyone, but (perhaps hypocritically), the 6th formers (and above) who were trapping off with the good-looking, mature girls in my year and taking them to parties and gigs were viewed as lucky bastards.

having three daughters - the eldest 15 - i see the above rather differently to how i did nearly 30 years ago. the problem however for the 'they were all grooming nonces' view is that the girls who were going down to Bristol and Cheltenham every weekend had _agency_: they lived a long way from those places, it took some effort to get from Yokelstown to Bristol on a saturday night, they were all girls who subsequently went to university and became doctors, lawyers, engineers etc.. they were very definately doing what they wanted to do, and having kept in touch with a couple of them, yes, they were going into town for the weekend and shagging left, right and centre, sometimes with people they knew, but often with randoms they'd meet at these gigs and parties. they were doing what the boys did at uni, but 2/3/4 years earlier.

there is, of course - because this is urban - a class element to this. it was middle class girls who went to parties in Bristol, and it was working class girls who got to see the Co-Op car park in all its glory.


----------



## tim (Mar 8, 2019)

kebabking said:


> in what way is morality not _formed_ by what people think?



Surely, what you think is formed by your moral code.


----------



## JimW (Mar 8, 2019)

kebabking said:


> ...small towns on the edge of the Cotswolds...


Dursley, I reckon.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 8, 2019)

JimW said:


> Dursley, I reckon.



not far...


----------



## JimW (Mar 8, 2019)

kebabking said:


> not far...


Your experience very like what I remember round that way though Stroud a bit different with added hippy factor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2019)

tim said:


> Surely, what you think is formed by your moral code.


which comes first, your moral code or your thoughts?


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 8, 2019)

Where's the poll?


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 8, 2019)

The interesting parallel with Lori Maddix and the Jackson stuff is the role of the parents who enabled these offences.  

But there is a clear difference, reflected in law, between sexual activity with a pre-pubescent kid, and with an adolescent.  In law, it is possible for children over the age of 13 to give consent, and for that consent to be genuine.  It’s still illegal, but it’s highly possible that a twentysomethimg bloke would avoid custodial for consensual sex with an adolescent.  

To suggest that it’s as bad as what Glitter or Jackson or Saville did to prepubescent kids is simply wrong.  The law recognises this, so I’m not sure why anyone else struggles.  

For the record, I was a sexually active teenager, and while my activity before 16 was not with men much older, not long after that I briefly had a relationship with a 36 year old, before finding a longer term relationship with a bloke in his early twenties.  I hadn’t matured significantly when I turned 16, and under different circumstances I wouldn’t have done differently had I met either man the year before.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 8, 2019)

I was going to clubs and having sexual experiences when I was underage. I really really wanted to get rid of my virginity it felt cumbersome and annoying. Being a virgin was the only thing that stopped me from going all the way: I believed it had to be with someone “special” but I knew I didn’t want a steady boyfriend, I wanted adventure. So being technically a virgin was just an obstruction.

Both my sisters - who were younger than I, and started coming out to clubs and parties because I was going - were being asked out on dates with much older lads. We’d all keep a close eye on each other. Lots of us were underage. When my sister started properly dating a man of 27 when she was 13, my dad met him and although he thought he was a tool (he was) he never intervened. I’d go on dates with them, and I’d noisily flip through a magazine when they were snogging. It only lasted a few weeks and when we talk about it now it doe seem really weird, but it didn’t then. Several pop stars asked her out too.

When the Bill Wyman thing happened it was a bit of a wake up call, I think*. We’d never really thought of ourselves as “underage”. We were smoking and drinking Pils through a straw, staying out all night, taking speed, going to gigs and nightclubs and getting in for free because we were underage and it made the clubs look cool to have us there. A lot of us started staying home on a Friday night when the Bill Wyman thing happened. Some of us started going out again a week or so afterwards, some of us were never seen again.

A lot of the older people we were hanging out with were creatives, already making their way as musicians, artists, designers etc. And so many of us went on to work in the creative industries ourselves. Whenever a new book comes out of those days, it’s filled with pictures of friends and lovers.

So yeah. This was in London, so I’m not claiming it was representative of elsewhere. But we definitely didn’t feel abused, we definitely had agency, and it definitely didn’t seem weird at the time.

There were sleazy creeps around, and some nasty shit happened too. It wasn’t some kind of utopian paradise (heroin, runaways, and of course exploitation). But on the whole, we knew who the creeps were, warned each other off, looked out for each other.

It really was a different time. I’m not saying it was okay. But it felt okay to us.



*ETA. I think the Bill Wyman thing had an effect on us because Bill Wyman *was* a sleazy creep, that was obvious in the photos and on the telly. So it made us look at ourselves in a new way.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 8, 2019)

I have to also say, though, that I was probably that way because my own boundaries had been breached and muddied by previous experiences that were abusive. Had those things not happened to me, I might not have been quite so happy to be quite so wild quite so young.


----------



## Edie (Mar 8, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I have to also say, though, that I was probably that way because my own boundaries had been breached and muddied by previous experiences that were abusive. Had those things not happened to me, I might not have been quite so happy to be quite so wild quite so young.


Yeah I had a lot of underage sex in really horrid pretty coerced circumstances (not in clubs) and I look at my 16yo down there in his room and think thank fuck he’s not out there.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 8, 2019)

Redacted!

TMI!


----------



## nogojones (Mar 8, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Iggy Pop (current avuncular old patriarch of BBC Radio 6) and Sable Starr (aged 14 and three quarters)
> 
> View attachment 163859


Fucking pixie booted insurance salesman


----------



## Oula (Mar 9, 2019)

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the "having agency" argument. Teenage girls may have agency and sexual desire but they don't make choices in a vacuum. Everyone involved has been primed as to how these things work and what their options are (ie older men with younger girls). There are safe, unexploitative for sexually active teenage girls to have fun and there are other ways which are less good.

When I was 13 I had a creepy penpal. He claimed to be 18 but I now think he was actually quite a bit older. He used to send me strange letters where he told me how depressed he was because his gerbil had died and then asking me to send him naked pictures of myself and telling me how much he'd like to make love to me. I didn't send him the naked pictures, but I did send him ones of me in black lacy underwear drinking vodka from the bottle. Why? Why did all of us schoolgirls flash the white van men who drove past our school and honked the horns and yelled rude things at us? Why did we use to flirtily tease our pervy maths teacher when he was getting hot and bothered watching the girls do PE in their gym skirts through the window? In all these situations (and others that I'm not willing to share) it felt like I had power and was in control. But I didn't and I wasn't and it took me a really long time to realise that.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Mar 9, 2019)

I remember girls I went to school with who were 15 and 16 going out with much older boyfriends...some were in their 30s. I always thought it was fucking creepy...the girls may have dressed up and made themselves look older but they were still kids..and behaved as such in school and hanging out with friends.

I met one friend with her "boyfriend" who was 30 going on 49. He was so well off he gave her a car for her 17th birthday. Her parents let her keep it.
She was probably the least mature girl in my class, mentally.
She looked like a model...but was very much a child inside...
She was so bowled over by the attention that she went along with things.

Thankfully she copped on in her early 20s after the scumbag dumped her for another teenager.

Men in their 30s and 40s dating teenagers....is in my view weird.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2019)

I don't think anyone is arguing that is isn't weird or creepy or wrong. Just that it is/was commonplace.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Mar 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that is isn't weird or creepy or wrong. Just that it is/was commonplace.



Absolutely. 
I was just recounting my experience.


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

I got a lift home last night from a 25 year old colleague who was going out with a man in his 40s from age 17-22. She objected strongly to my comment that that made her ex a borderline paedo.


----------



## Looby (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, I know it happened here and there but I genuinely reckon these are exceptions. Of course we'll now have a slew of posters making up anecdotes about large age gaps between blokes and underage girls but it really was not common as far as I remember and I grew up in a very average part of the country.



I remember it as fairly common. I think I’m a little bit younger than you but there were a lot of school girls under 16 with much older boyfriends. Maybe not as common that the men were in their 20s but certainly late teens. Among my peers it was something slightly scandalous and exciting but none of us thought it was wrong. 

There was one girl (that did look a lot older) who’d had a one night stand with a bloke she’d met in a club over the summer at 14. She then joined our school and he was the drama teacher. He also dated a girl from school the summer after we left. Double dated with another teacher and girl from our year group I recall. We all thought that was dodgy though.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 9, 2019)

Looby said:


> I remember it as fairly common. I think I’m a little bit younger than you but there were a lot of school girls under 16 with much older boyfriends. Maybe not as common that the men were in their 20s but certainly late teens. Among my peers it was something slightly scandalous and exciting but none of us thought it was wrong.



That reminded me of my Mum talking about how she got kind of a buzz when she first started going out with my Dad and he dropped her off at school on his motorbike.  He was nearly three years older and considered a bit of a bad boy whereas she was the archetypal goodie two shoes up until then.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 9, 2019)

Yes, I can remember young schoolgirls going out with older boys. 
Not that they had motorbikes though


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> ...
> Men who fucked girls when I was a kid got the shit kicked out of them...



Your comments on this thread read to me mostly that you're primarily disappointed you perhaps weren't old enough to do a bit of shit kicking yourself back in the day and are attempting to make up for it now, rather than that you actually care very much about the possible feelings of those involved, particularly the underage girls.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> Your comments on this thread read to me mostly that you're primarily disappointed you perhaps weren't old enough to do a bit of shit kicking yourself back in the day and are attempting to make up for it now, rather than that you actually care very much about the possible feelings of those involved, particularly the underage girls.


Righto. Not much I can do about the way comments read to you. You are, after all, you.


----------



## extra dry (Mar 10, 2019)

If the older kid had a motor that was not 20 yrs old, forget about it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Have you got a point to make, wanker?



Odd thread. Reminds me, I remember posting about how my sister and her friend were traumatised (as young teens) by a bloke masturbating on the bus.

Do you remember how you joked about that, Spymaster


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Odd thread. Reminds me, I remember posting about how my sister and her friend were traumatised (as young teens) by a bloke masturbating on the bus.
> 
> Do you remember how you joked about that, Spymaster


Yes. Vaguely. But I think I was taking the piss out of you rather than them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Vaguely. But I think I was taking the piss out of you rather than them.



Anyway, that's past beef and we've moved on. But it does make me question threads like these, a bit. Not that sexual predators or dubious encounters shouldn't be questioned, especially in light of the last few years and all the revelations that have surfaced, from politicans to pop stars.


----------

